Home : Blogs : Nestor & Katerina Gasset Realtors® Wellington Florida Luxury Homes : Wellington Homes and More...

Net Neutrality- Is It More Interference With Your Online Business?

Net Neutrality is going to be voted on tomorrow at the FCC. The vote is going to be to begin drafting the network rules.

The internet is the last free speech and free enterprise place. The internet is the place where you can take $100 and become very wealthy if you find the need and then fill that need with a product or service. Many people who have lost their jobs have gone to the internet and worked for hours and hours to build a business. For anyone that does not think that regulating the internet is not going to affect them, it may not, but it more certainly will affect someone in your family or someone you know. net neutrality

The proponants of net neutrality say that everyone in America would have access to broadband/internet.

In the 1930's when radio was the mode of communication- did everyone get a free radio?

In the 1950's when Television became the method for getting information- did everyone get a free television?

The sense of entitlement has really gone too far. The people this will hurt the most is the small business people because all of the band-with will be used to create a sluggish system. You think the days of slow, like in 56K modem is behind us? Think again.

The next part of the program that is extremely dangerous is that the government is already setting aside 7.2 Billion dollars to make sure net neutrality gets put in place. First of all, it is going to cost a lot more than that so where are they going to get the money? Secondly, it is going to lead to more government regulation and interference with a free market that is working just fine the way it is right now. If you don't have internet access and can not afford it, you can go to the library and get free internet at the library. The government wants access to broadband everywhere however that would not drive the price down, it would in fact, drive the price of broadband up.

Think about slow. We were in the Apple store the other day working on a one on one class and needed to download Crossover. The Apple store has DSL. There were a lot of customers in the store playing around with all the computers which resulted of course with them going on line to check things out. The time for Crossover to load at our home was about 4 minutes total. At the Apple store it took 18 minutes to download because of all the people using the same line. Think about it! Do you think the government really cares about how slow or fast your connection is? You would be forced into adding expensive T-lines into your offices just to get a faster load time.

There are many proponants for net neutrality especially special interest groups and companies like Google, Facebook, Skype. Yet Google wants it both ways. You see, they backed net neutrality but then don't want it applied to Google Voice. You see, it goes again to if it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander, NOT! Google Voice is free except for in some areas where it is just too expensive for them to offer it, like in very rural areas.There they use blocked numbers. Well, net neutrality rules, in other words, the government, would force Google to either offer Google Voice for free for all users or they would have to charge all users to use Google Voice. It would no longer be free and that hurts you and me. Mostly, it is not the job of the government to dictate the terms of service of Google.

There are many internet providers around, there is plenty of competition. The more the demand grows, the more competition will ensue. This will drive the prices lower through free markets. If you don't like your internet provider, it is starting to be a norm that you can switch to another provider. The competition will keep things fair. The free market has a way of working things out.

What I don't like about net neutrality is the over extension of the arm of government intruding into the free markets and they will, mark my words, start regulating the last frontier of free speech, free enterprise and low cost ways of making a living on the internet. He who pays gets to make the rules. The government starts paying, they will start more regulating.

The most interesting thing that I found or should I say, did not find- is any discussion relating this from either the proponants or the opponants. Because it seems, at the end of the day, the folks just don't really matter.

Feel free to distribute and reblog.

Posted by Nestor & Katerina Gasset Realtors® Wellington Florida Luxury Homes on 10/21/2009 07:53 PM

Comments (92)

Net Neutrality in the ActiveRain Channel

net neutrality

Originally posted at: South Florida Real Estate and...: Net Neutrality- Is It More Interference With Your Online Business?

This post has been included in Florida Information Palm Beach County, FL Information Wellington, FL Information
Post is included in group: "Whacked"!!!
Post is included in group: Silent Majority
Post is included in group: Politics And Real Estate
Post is included in group: Dissent
Post is included in group: Active Rain Question Of The Week

92 Comments on Net Neutrality- Is It More Interference With Your Online Business?

OCT

Katerina - Well said, keep government out of the private sector and free enterprise.

Hi Nestor and Katerina. I do not want government interference when it comes to capitalism and the free market. It is a bad idea and am not surprised that some companies like Google are trying to set a double standard for themselves so that they can benefit. ~ Lana

It's just a case of big government thinking that bigger would be better. We need to vote these clowns out as fast as possible. Starting at the local level.

YOu said, "What I don't like about net neutrality is the over extension of the arm of government intruding into the free markets and they will, mark my words, start regulating the last frontier of free speech, free enterprise and low cost ways of making a living on the internet. He who pays gets to make the rules. The government starts paying, they will start more regulating."

Makes me sick....it is terrible....the people pushing this are not for freedom of Speech at ALL, I know you know what I am talking about.

Yes this is bad news for anyone who runs an online business. No this is not about freedom of speech. Just the opposite. More about "controlled speech".

I just reblogged!! Thank you for your insight. I agree the Government has reached it's hand to far.

Missy- If you study online about this the scary part is how so many people are fooled into thinking this is against big business and for the regular folks. But if you start driving up prices you are hurting the small businesses. If you don't have the money to pay for something, like the infrastructure for broadband all over the US even in rural areas, someone is going to pay for it. This is not about making it free for everyone, it is about making it freely available for everyone. How is that helping the small biz?

I see that ATT and Google are fighting over this. ATT pushes and Google pushes back. It is more about them than it is about their customers. I don't buy any of this crap that this is going to be good for us. Everytime the gov't gets involved, they mess things up. People don't understand the steps that gov'ts take to accomplish control. They all want control. It is not a party thing, it is a gov't thing and that is why you have to have a small gov't and less intrusions into our lives. We know how to take care of ourselves and we don't need a nanny state to make our decisions for us. Katerina

There is no reason the internet should be free... except that the current mood in DC is for them to play Mommy and Daddy and provide for all of us kids. I'm a big boy and can provide for myself.

Geez Louise...it makes me sick to my stomach to see our freedoms being taken away by such big government interferance. I never in my wildest dreams thought our country would actually consider socialism as something good. Thanks for the info!

Katrina,

This is a first cousin to the Fairness Doctrine - a way to get in the door. No one is preventing access now. It's just not free. :)

Steve

The arrogance of the Obama administration to think that they can place controls on the World Wide Web is unbelievable. Perhaps they launched their attack on Fox News to distract us from what is happening regarding the net. I wonder if this will create a lot of business for Canadian and offshore hosts.

Katerina - it is another government enforcement of mediocrity. Private companies have invested in the infrastructure, they should be able to manage that infrastructure to their benefit. Personally, I don't want the slacker down the block to be downloading games and movies all day to keep me from doing my business. But hey, we are going to get the same crappy medical service soon also.

Katerina, now this stuff is something that you and I totally agree on! I am a huge advocate of keeping government out of the economics of the market place. Something gives me the feeling that a lot of the FTC staffers who are working on this don't quite get it.

And don't you love your Mac?

Thanks for sharing this information. I wasn't aware of this going on and I am sick of it all. I can't believe this country is allowing these people to walk all over us. What next?

Hi Katerina,

Net neutrality is something I thought you would be for.

If you look at the corporate interests that are against net neutrality, you would realize that they want to charge preferential access to broadband. They want to SELL high speed connections to the highest bidder. Small business people using the interenet to market ourselves would be no match against the Big Box entities like Coldwell or Prudential etc.. The big guns could BUY more broadband so that their site would snap open far more quickly than any of our small sites. This in turn would slow down smaller sites like mine and yours. We couldn't compete against that because the public has no patience to wait and wait and wait for a page to load. It doesn't matter how wonderful the content is - if the page takes too long to load- they will be on to the next site until they find one that snaps open easily.

That, Katerina, would KILL the very dream you are thinking should be preserved. The days where $100 and hard work would allow you to build an internet presence and a small business would be gone forever if we were foolish enough not to support net neutrality.

A lot of money has been put up in the "hands off the internet" campaigns and slogans. Unfortunately this has hoodwinked a lot of conservatives into thinking that these big cable/wireless companies should be free to do whatever they want.

You guys are the ones who don't get it - this could put an enormous fly in the ointment of internet marketing for small business. Net neutrality prevents Cable companies like Time-Warner and Comcast or Verizon from trying to charge for faster access. Of COURSE these companies are against it. This is a potential cash-cow of enormous proportions - and those nasty democrats are interfering because they want to protect small businesses who couldn't afford the fees they would levy. How DARE THEY???

THANK GOD the Democrats are in control. They are trying to protect small businesses against monopolies and the big guns who would swat us away like flies by buying up all the broadband speed.

OCT

When are the corrupt politicians going to stop giving away services and money (via the Tax Payers Wallet)?

Since when is anyone entitled to anything in life?

Government intervention is never the answer...Thanks for bringing this to my attention and others who haven't really followed the issue.

Less government intervention not more. Definitely reblogging.

The free market created high speed internet - the government has no right trying to control it. It's called CAPITALISM and that's the way we do things in America... Well, at least we used to until this administration took over. :(

Katerina, this Administration is having a hey day trying to pass as much leglslation and changes through various government entities like FCC that is is staggering to try to keep up with all of it. Thanks for bringing this up, as it has received no press coverage. Whatever happened to government "by the people"? It's all "government by special interests."

Very well said.

Jean Richer
Ottawa,ON

Great post...Amen.

I happened to pick up in this just yesteday. It's certainly dead silent on all the major networks.

Nestor and Katerina,

I think they want to cash in on the emails...since the postal service is losing so much business from that....

Ann Hayden

Katerina.....This is an excellent post. It is all about government control and not competition.

Jerry Gray CRB,CRS,GRI / Prudential Carolinas Realty / Winston Salem, NC

I agree with Ruthmarie - you've got it backward, guys. Nowhere does the net neutrality concept say anything about "free internet," and if that's the junk you're listening to then you need to turn off your Limbaugh-Hannity-Beck-OReilly stations.

You want full-tilt capitalism and a "free market?" Sure, except for the special interests that keep us in business, like FHA, mortgage-interest tax deductions.

And Google provides a free service - so AT&T says, hey, you have to provide it free to everybody without exception no matter what it costs you? The only reason ATT wants the rules - designed for monopoly competition - to apply to Google's service is so they can charge more for their own service.

Too much big government and too little free market. But I'm very much afraid that its going to get worse before it gets better......

Patricia- I know we agree on several fronts:) Check this out, one of the Senators that is pushing this net neutrality( can't remember his name) was just given a job at Google during all of this, hmmmm, sounds like politics as usual! If this is going to be a war between ATT and Google, then let them at it, leave the government out of it and let the best man win! Katerina

This goes back to my core beliefs. Stay out of my way.

I believe the internet should be 100% completely unregulated. That has good and bad, but leave me alone to decide where I and my family venture and where I shouldn't. I am against cencorship in all forms. I have no time for these so called "family groups" that want to tell me what I can and cannot watch on tv, what movies I can watch, and what books my children can read in a public school. They are fear mongering and playing big brother. I will decide what media I want to view and what not to, period. Censorship is rotten at its core and stifles creativity, therefore stifling our country's growth.

Thanks for this today. I will reblog.......

Patricia

Ruthmarie: I have read both sides of this issue. I am amazed at how easy it is to make something appear as protecting the little people in order to protect us from the big bad evil corporations- who by the way- provide millions of jobs but that is besides the point. I don't lke big business when they sleep in bed with the government. I don't like big Pharma who sleeps in bed with the FDA to get their way because that is NOT free market, that is not capitilism. People have been taught something that is not so. We have not had free markets in the USA for a long time. We have not capitalism in a long time.

Free markets have a way of working themselves out. I think there are enough small broad band companies that evolve and grow that there will continue to be competition. Like in my comment to Patricia- if ATT and Google have issues, let them haggle it out in the free market. Why get government involved in their fight for markets and pricing?

Since I am more of a libertarian than most conservatives I am going to have a different view point on free markets. This was a tough one for me to decide because of the pull between government involvement and not. My principles no matter how enticing the side for gov't involment is on this issue- dictated to me that I must overlook the immediate benefit for the long term consequences which will be government intrusion on free speech because as the government takes control and starts competing in broad band they too will charge for it. If you don't think that the government is also on the take from special interest groups that is very naive thinking.

Ruthmarie- I am a Christian, very conservative with morals and principles but I am not a Republican in who they are today. I am libertarian in most areas- I believe in free markets, capitalism, freedom of religion no matter what that religion is, freedom of speech but I also believe in things that most conservatives don't like legalizing pot and not putting people in prison for selling pot and drugs. That is a libertarian view. I don't use drugs and I don't smoke pot but I believe that if you are going to legalize alcohol and tobacco which are far worse drugs than adults should be able to have the choice to decide for themselves. I think all things work out because you can not legislate morality. Please don't put us all in the same boat. :) To me, the Republicans and the Democrats are the same party. I think we have a one party system. They both lay down for the highest bidder. Katerina

I think net neutrality is not being understood properly here and is being confused with encouraging the infrastructure that will provide broadband access to outlying areas that currently aren't being served (they are related but not the same).

This post (not mine) does a good job of describing the principles of net neutrality which are the exact opposite of censorship: http://activerain.com/blogsview/1297567/net-neutrality-just-the-facts

Before you jump on the keep-gov't-out-of-the-internet bandwagon, make sure you understand what the issues are, namely that ISP's can't decide which content to provide based on who is paying them more.

I don't claim to have a deep understanding of this issue but I would urge the commenters to delve into it further before rushing to judgement.

I am glad that John Stossel came over to Fox news to give a libertarian viewpoint on things like healthcare, cap and trade, free markets and free choice. He has some very good and sound thoughts on how health care should be run in our country but of course that will never happen because the government is not into doing what makes sense, they are into who is getting paid what and who is promising them a job after they leave office, etc. IT is all about them and not about us. When people wake up to this fact, things will start to change. But you can not have change keeping the status quo and keeping the same people in office over and over again. Too bad we can't have term limits as that would solve a lot of things, but the politicians will never vote themselves out of a job just like they - you can watch it on cspan- were laughing when one of them brought up an amendment to the health care bill saying that all of congress would have to be on the same plan and they laughed out loud!

Great Post! Blogging is great, but we need to inform everyone we talk to about what's going on out there. Some folks are just busy taking care of their families and jobs and just aren't paying attention. People are shocked when I tell them what I know, and that's just the tip of the iceburg. Our industry, as well as our country is in deep trouble if we don't take a stand!

Thanks for getting the word out there! :)

Julie- I am glad you added to the conversation. I am all about doing due diligence on issues and looking at all sides. I contemplated what the initial reason for net neutrality were but somehow it gets changed over time and regulations. It may appear innocent but then again so does a wolf in sheep's clothing, just saying...

Kim- How do you know that I am for the FHA? I am not. It really does not have anything to do with our market. Most homes in our market are well above the FHA price ceiling. I believe in free markets when it comes to housing and that is why I think government should stay out of that market too, and that they should privatize fannie and freddie and social security.

How do you know what stations I watch or even if I watch TV at all? Those are assumptions on your part. I mostly read history books like The Forgotten Man, Woodrow Wilson's hand written autobiographies, white house documents from FDR, Teddy and the rest of those self proclaimed progressives who came out in their own writing and legislations to destroy free markets. I go to the source, like you should watch CSPAN to see what a bunch of self serving creeps run our country on both sides.

As far as taxes go- if the government is going to tax its people, than there should be tax incentives for small business and interest deductions; but that is dealing with a system that is already there. That is not saying I am for that system, just that within that system, since they are making the rules, let those rules be in favor of us. They need to entirely get rid of the IRS and replace it with a sales tax and luxury tax system. That way the poor people, (90% of them own Plazma and HD TVs, Playstations, etc) would have to pay a tax to buy those products that then pays for their food stamps. Of course there would not be a tax on toilet paper and food and body deodarant:)

Kim- Why should the government get involved in the first place with Google and ATT squabbles?

Katerina,

Thanks for explaing this to us and congrats on the feature!

Julie- and what about Hughes Net for the rural areas? I see their ads on TV. I don't know anything about it except that it is a higher price than most broadbands and that it is a satelite system for accessing the internet. It seems that is a free market solution, a company figured out that rural areas are on dial up and they provided a way for them to get faster internet service. Just saying...

Hi Katerina...Go Get them, they wil have their hands full with you blogging against the New Regulations.

Cheers, I agree keep Government out of the Internet.

Question: What is this Government thing everybody is blaming for intrusions and wrong doings ? The Government has nothing to do with anything, it is an organization run by employees and elected officials. When a piece of legislation does not sit well with us, we need to call, fax, email, and get involved to let our House Representatives or Senators know our opinions. Complaining about this Government thing is like riding a bus and complaining about how the bus is speeding, breaking suddenly, and making you sick to the stomach. Bad bus, right?

Hint: Talk to the driver!

I have mixed feelings about this. I think that my kids with their access to internet at our home have such an advantage over kids that don't have access in their homes. In fact, we kind of make it a game in our house to try to come up with a question at dinner that no one knows and one of us will google it after dinner and share it with the others. The information is so easy to get that it has become 'fun' for my kids to interact and discover. That is a precious commodity and it gives my kids a distinct advantage.

Not all kids have access to libraries to use computers (our local library is 10 miles away and only open 4 days per week now as they have had drastic cuts in their budget). Most schools have very limited if no access to computer labs.

However...government seems to complicate and diminish things when they get involved. I guess in this instance, I would be willing to pay for an expensive T1 line if it effected my business access or lifestyle.

Thanks for the heads up though, I hadn't heard anything on this in awhile and it's interesting to see the debate heading forward.

Some reading material for those of you interested in educating yourself on the issue.

The Durable Internet: Preserving Network Neutrality without Regulation

"New regulations inevitably come with unintended consequences. Indeed, today's network neutrality debate is strikingly similar to the debate that produced the first modern regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission. Unfortunately, rather than protecting consumers from the railroads, the ICC protected the railroads from competition by erecting new barriers to entry in the surface transportation marketplace. Other 20th-century regulatory agencies also limited competition in the industries they regulated. Like these older regulatory regimes, network neutrality regulations are likely not to achieve their intended aims. Given the need for more competition in the broadband marketplace, policymakers should be especially wary of enacting regulations that could become a barrier to entry for new broadband firms."

AP article

"Lawrence Spiwak, president of the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Policy Studies, a think tank that promotes free-market approaches, fears the FCC could hurt small, rural carriers that face higher costs to build out their systems. Without the ability to manage traffic, he said, these companies could be forced to make expensive network upgrades they cannot afford.

But the service providers, along with many Republicans and even some Democrats in Congress, say the FCC chairman has not shown a need for more regulation given the few known examples of discrimination."

Hand off the Internet

There is no need for the net neutrality laws. This attitude that "thank God the democrats are in control" is ridiculous. We the People are in control and we don't need more government interference in our lives, our businesses or our markets. This has nothing to do with protecting small businesses. It is about controlling yet another aspect of our lives.

Katerina:

Well said and your points are well taken...

wishing you continued success,

What a terrific post. Thank you for your time!

FYI, the FCC and the Adminstration are in favor of Net Neutrality. This ruling will prevent the Telcos from restricting connectivity.

Right now I surf at a speed set by my provider- under the new ruling my provider would have let me surf at the highest speed possible, without charging me additional fees for it.

This is a major win for the consumer and a loss for the Telcos.

Sometimes politicians do not recognize the unintended consequences to their actions. I think net neutrality will create less access, not more. My default poistion is when in doubt, keep the government out.

I am concerned about Internet Providers being able to restrict access to particular sites or channel you to thier prefered sites. I have read both sides of this issue. It is not an easy issue. In general I think free markets should be allowed to operate. If I do not like my provider I can move on to another provider.

Great post Katerina!

Well, here BIG government goes again. :) Below is for those who would like to make their voices heard!

Houston, TX is the 28th stop on the Tea Party Express national bus tour. Date/Time: Saturday, November 7th at 11:30 am Rally Location:
Sam Houston Race Parkway
7575 N. Sam Houston Parkway West
Houston, TX 77064 The entire schedule can be viewed at: http://www.teapartyexpress.org/tour-schedule-2/

Hi Katerina,

I think there are two issues here. Unfortunately, politically, we will always be on opposite ends...

1. Net neutrality is one issue

2. Infrastructure investment is another issue - that is more of a direct economic stimulant that would produce jobs etc. but should be considered separately from the neutrality issue.

I've been watching the neutrality issue for a long time now.

Net neutrality is attempting to prevent big carriers such as AT&T and Time- Warner and Comcast from starting to charge for bandwidth access on an individual basis. Access to high-speed interent would be regulated by the ability to pay. The more we would fork up - the faster our web sites would open and load. NONE OF US could compete with the big dogs such as Coldwell and Prudential, Century 21 etc. if the telecom companies would be allowed to charge for such access. This would be an enormous cash cow for them and they would milk us into poverty in one shot.

In my neck of the woods big-box brokerages have been trying to stifle individual agent's attempts at self-marketing by limiting them to web pages on their brokerage site or prohibiting the use of IDX on individual sites. I walked away from three such brokerages when Nelson-Vrooman closed their doors in 2008. They HATE agents like myself and a handful of others that have leveled the playing field by setting up their own sites and their own blogs. They want control BACK in their hands.

I went to Keller because these large brokerages were playing lots of games with new agents. They claimed to "support listings" - (yeah right! if $200 is support then they are tops!) they claimed to give agents leads (Nopers - been there done that.) and this was used these "services" justify splits and franchise fees that left use with pennies in our pockets - I mean we were well below 50%. Then when that failed, they tried to stifle the agent's attempts at generating their OWN leads. They wanted all the cards and gave nothing back. And they certainly wanted control of the MLS back in their hands.

Doing away with net-neutrality would be a dream come true for this crowd. Just throw money at it and the small fry will go away. By doing so, they can jack up the cost of true high-speed access making it totally impossible for single practicioners to compete. Totally worth the cost for them. Pesky people like me would drop like flies.

It goes back to the same old theory that he who holds the gold built the better mousetrap...not always true. But without some REGULATION - you may never find out about any alternatives. Look at how microsoft brought so many good software companies to their knees? Microsoft was allowed to do what many large companies are allowed to do. Sit on their laurals by throwing money around they can quash new innovation that doesn't fit their model in short order. Granted, they finally got theirs with advent of Apple. However, how many good companies had to go under for that to happen? Was the carnage necessary? NO! With better anti-trust policy and proper regulation - many of those promising start-ups would be here today and we would be the better for it.

I'm not wild about either party these days because they are both too tied to corporate wealth to fund their campaigns. Both have contributed to the issue. There was just a big feature on Frontline that showed that the Clinton Administration bowed far too much to the laissez faire philosophy that pushed us off the cliff in 2008. Indeed, both parties contributed to the deregulation frenzy that brought the economy down.

But the middle class has finally smelled the coffee perking and it is screaming that it won't go down without a fight. Unfortunately, the middle class need a more level playing field to thrive. If you read or listen to people like Elizabeth Warren, you would hear a different perspective. She has been warning about the collapse of the middle class for about 10 years. So far, she has been spot-on in her analysis. The regulation you despise is essential if want to allow for new models and new innovation and small business startups. It also is there to prevent companies from selling snake oil instead of something as essential as health insurance. You get rid of reasonable controls and you risk anarchy by oligarchs. As for start-ups - eventually, no one would bother with the risk - and innovation would be stifled. That has already happened in many ways to my former field. People play it "safe" for fear of being ruined by their own brainchild.

Instead of listening to Rush, O'Reilly and Limbaugh give a listen to Elizabeth Warren or even a newly reformed Alan Greenspan. He was a great believer in Ayn Rand. He found that the "invisible hand" of market forces worked only to increase risk and reward greed. He testified before Congress that he had been "wrong" - that leaving markets to their own devices invited reckless behavior and risk taking that could bring down the world economy. Eventually, market forces MIGHT bring about equalibrium, but how many have to be ruined and impoverished getting to that point? And how long would the equalibrium last before another group of risk takers would lead us down the same path to destruction. The Great Depression and the current crisis are the direct result of deregulation gone amok.

You go back to laissez faire economic policy AGAIN and people will be on the street with torches....marching on Washington...

Ruthmarie,

I can appreciate your long post but we probably also have some disagreement. Can you please give me an example of how the current environment is so rife with problems that justifies federal regulation?

Your metaphor for the real estate industry doesn't parallel the reality of the Internet.

Markets do work but government intervention and regulation gives people a false sense of security to not make prudent decisions. The current crisis as an example, the government forced lenders to make bad loans, they backed the securitization of these debts, and they bailed out bad investments. That's not free market and is why they need to stay out.

Ok, guys, this is an interesting blog. I do not have the answers and I am amazed that a lot of you think you do. What I know is that this is a very complex issue and the answers are not evident. Neither total government control or laisse faire are the answer. One the government controls and the other vested money interests. We have to look for solutions that work and get the ideologies out of the picture.

Katerina.... let's just call it what it is...

Great post Katerina.! I can't say I had heard of it. I just tweeted it.

Thank you!!!!

Ruthmarie,

You were actually putting forth a good argument (however seriously flawed) until you decided to take a shot at talk radio. I listen to or watch those shows (actually Rush and Limbaugh are one in the same) and I haven't heard much at all about net neutrality. Maybe you should try to broaden your media selections before chastising the rest of us for ours (or what you assume them to be).

And you couldn't be more wrong about The Great Depression and accusing deregulation of causing it. You really are way off the mark.

Furthermore, you want us to listen to Elizabeth Warren, chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel in charge of overseeing T.A.R.P? Really? A contributing blogger at The Huffington Post? She appears in a Michael Moore film, on NPR, MSNBC and The Daily Show and and you think we should consider her a good source of information regarding regulation. Really? She's all for regulation and thinks it can help with innovation. Hmm, I wonder where you get your ideas on markets and regulation from. Can you tell us what company she has ever run? What job she has held outside of academia? She is a lawyer not a business owner or entrepreneur or even an economist.

Once again the government getting in to a realm of our life that is not needed. When government started, I'll say the percentage they were involved in our lives was about 10%, yesterday maybe 50% and looking like tomorrow 60%. WE DON'T WANT TO BE CHINA PEOPLE. DO YOU WANT THE GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING EVERY ASPECT OF YOUR LIFE!

Todd Clark - www.LivingBeaverton.com

What can be done about this???

This post and many of the comments reminds me of how I sometimes describe one facet of this site to others. Many times it seems that someone will make a claim or state an opinion in a post - no matter how spurious - and many will chime in with "thanks", "great point" etc. no matter how little they understand the issue. Actually the way I tell it to friends is that somebody could post that "the world is flat" and get all sorts of comments thanking them for pointing that out. And nowadays it seems that many would add that it's that dratted Obama and the Socialists that are trying to push that round earth malarkey down our throats.

I would encourage everyone to read Mitchell's post that Julia mentioned in comment #31 and to go out and try to learn more about this issue - from non-political sites and from sites whose origin you can determine since it's very easy (and ever more popular nowadays) for large corporations to masquerade as watching out for your interests not theirs.

I am sickened by the constant squalling about "big government" and "getting government out of our lives" particularly when the option is to have our lives further controlled by corporate interests and profit-making entities.

Liz

Lots of insightful comments and opportunities to educate ourselves on the issues facing us with BIG GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION!

"Julie- and what about Hughes Net for the rural areas? I see their ads on TV. I don't know anything about it except that it is a higher price than most broadbands and that it is a satelite system for accessing the internet. It seems that is a free market solution, a company figured out that rural areas are on dial up and they provided a way for them to get faster internet service. Just saying..."

I'm assuming that this was directed at me so I'll answer...

I specifically didn't comment on the promotion/encouragement of additional infrastructure for broadband access because I'm torn on the issue myself. On one hand private enterprise is almost always better at handling these issues. On the other hand, it could certainly be argued that the information superhighway is almost as important these days, and as vital to the growth of our economy as the Federal interstate (roadway) system and you definitely don't hear conservatives and small government-ers advocating for private ownership of that. It's in the best interest of the whole country that everyone have access to roads. It might just be in the best interest of the whole country for everyone to have access to broadband.

Again, I'm not necessarily in favor of one or the other but I AM in favor of debating issues with nuance and intelligent commentary.

Thanks for your insight into this situation, I need to do some due Diligence before I can comment.

Thanks again

Katerina, my understanding on net neutrality is the government saying what could be on the net. I think there is a freedom of speech issue here.

This is interesting stuff. It sounds like there is more than one meaning to Net Neutrality. I will have to do more reading before I can chime in either way.

Julie- You are welcome anytime here to debate and discuss. This studying and discussing the issue is how we develop our opinions and it is how we learn and grow. I feel torn as well, yet, my fear is more of the end result. I can't think of much that the government has been successful for a very long time. Thank you for adding to the conversation! Katerina

Richard- Oh, thank you SOOO much for your commentary. I also thank you for the link to CATO. I have been looking for some studies on this issue and it has been super difficult to find on the internet, Hmmm, I wonder why. I really appreciate your analogy about the interstate commerce regulation.

Liz- I encourage lively and healthy debates from opposing viewpoints. Many people that disagree with me still respect me. They know where I stand and whom I stand with. They know they can count on me for no matter how I may disagree with them- they will find me standing right next to them in their right to free speech.

If our speaking against big government sickens you- you have your free choice, right now, to not read comments that speak against big government.

While you are sickened by those of us who are against big government and you don't like big business- well- exactly our point- Big Business gets bigger and shuts out competition by sleeping in bed at the white house. This has been going on for many years. That is not free markets. People confuse the big biz you see and know as somehow these big biz companies just arrived through stepping on other people with no mention of how they really got there which is by government regulations that favor one company over another.

Let's take a look at GE. GE is in a conflict of interest relationship with the white house. GE stands to benefit from cap and trade while many other companies will be put out of business. GE is a corrupt company, big business that did not make it through free trade and free market but rather through government interference in order for them to gain the market share. That sickens me.

Michael- That is a very libertarian viewpoint and I agree with you. It is my job as a parent to censor what my children see or hear or read. It is not the government's job. The internet should be off limits to government and the market will work itself out.

Ruthmarie- It was precisely Hoover's and FDR's regulations that brought on the depression. Read, The Forgotten Man.

One of the best Presidents who is not given any credit is Calvin Coolidge. He allowed the free markets and he was a hands off private biz kind of guy.

I get my news from an array of media throughout the world. I watch news from all over the world and from non US stations online to get the whole picture. Sun Tzu, the art of war, says, keep your friends close, your enemies closer. Therefore, I see what all sides have to say on a subject. At the end of the day, I use my moral compass to guide me into my opinions, theories, principles and values.

Katerina - The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission ("CRTC") which is the Canadian version of the FTC is currently holding hearings on net neutraility issues. We have similar issues with the big telcos and cablecos vs. the small ISPs who buy wholesale access and retail level customers as you do in the USA.

I wish it were easier for me to just read these blogs, shake my head, and move on. For decades I’ve known that the professional real estate community leaned right. Sometimes I even agreed with them. Today however, it’s bloody mind numbing to listen to the right try to have a debate. Makes me wonder what I’ve wondered into here on Active Rain.

“In the 1930's when radio was the mode of communication- did everyone get a free radio? In the 1950's when Television became the method for getting information- did everyone get a free television?”

What point are you trying to make here? When electricity became manageable did everyone get a free generator? When the telephone was invented did everyone get a free telephone?

“The sense of entitlement has really gone too far.”

You’re absolutely spot on here. We should immediately stop generating electricity, telecommunications, and other utility services to “out of the way” rural areas and especially small businesses. It costs too much for the few people it serves and the paltry size of those small businesses is to insignificant to matter. Let them use candles for light and the pony express for communication. Including them just costs the rest of us too much tax money to support the infrastructure they need to utilize these services.

"The next part of the program that is extremely dangerous is that the government is already setting aside 7.2 Billion dollars to make sure net neutrality gets put in place. First of all, it is going to cost a lot more than that so where are they going to get the money?”

Ummmm . . . selling the service to consumers? Oh wait I forgot, in the real estate business you collect rent before you buy the property right?

“Secondly, it is going to lead to more government regulation and interference with a free market that is working just fine the way it is right now.”

Ever heard of Wall Street?

“The government wants access to broadband everywhere however that would not drive the price down, it would in fact, drive the price of broadband up.”

Ah, the purveyors of the free enterprise system insert foot in mouth again. It’s always interesting how those on the right are always vehemently supporting “free market competition” as the solution to everything that is wrong with capitalism today except for when it comes to defending the monopolists they are currently buying services from, like Comcast. Do you even know why you pay upwards of $100.00 per month for digital television and internet service from the providers you’re defending in this blog? It’s because there’s NO COMPETITION. Long ago and far away companies like Comcast made sweet heart deals with the federal government for protected territories with NO COMPETITION that still exist to this day.

Remember what you were paying for long distance and local telephone service before the big bad government came in and broke up AT&T? That’s right. The big bad government you HATE, ended that monopoly so you could enjoy calling all over the world with a dizzying array of providers to choose from for less per month than you probably used to pay for ONE long distance call.

What the hell were they thinking?

“The time for Crossover to load at our home was about 4 minutes total. At the Apple store it took 18 minutes to download because of all the people using the same line. Think about it! Do you think the government really cares about how slow or fast your connection is?”

Yeah! Screw those other people. Who the hell do they think they are wanting to get on the internet at the same time you're trying to use it!!!! Why they might be searching for one of your listings to buy!! Can’t have that!

“You would be forced into adding expensive T-lines into your offices just to get a faster load time.”

If you knew anything about what you’re talking about you would know that “T-Lines” as you call them are SLOWER than cable or fiber optics. The reason they SEEM faster is because they are dedicated. That’s all.

“There are many proponants for net neutrality especially special interest groups and companies like Google, Facebook, Skype. Yet Google wants it both ways. You see, they backed net neutrality but then don't want it applied to Google Voice.”

Again, what are you talking about? These companies want everyone (Including you) to be able to access the internet at HIGH SPEED without having to PAY EXTRA for the privilege. That’s right. You’d actually get MORE for the same money you’re paying now. Not LESS. Whoa, can’t have that now can we? Wouldn’t be good for the corporatists protected markets that you adore so much.

“You see, it goes again to if it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander, NOT! Google Voice is free except for in some areas where it is just too expensive for them to offer it, like in very rural areas.”

That’s because corporatist companies with protected markets (like Comcast for example) don’t want to invest in the infrastructure necessary to bring those rural areas into the 21st century. IOW’s they don’t want to spend the money to lay the cable to connect everyone. Therefore Google can’t offer their FREE service to everyone. So it’s corporations with PROTECTED markets like Comcast that are hurting you and me, not the FCC.

“Mostly, it is not the job of the government to dictate the terms of service of Google.”

You’re right, we should only let corporations dictate what we can or cannot have.

“There are many internet providers around, there is plenty of competition.”

Really? Gosh, you must live on a different planet than me. In the city where I live there are exactly TWO broadband ISP’s of which you get a choice of exactly NONE because who you get depends on where you live. That’s competitive isn’t it?

“The more the demand grows, the more competition will ensue. This will drive the prices lower through free markets.”

True, if only we had a free market. Don’t count on Comcast to suddenly believe in free enterprise unless forced to by the government however. Can't imagine why. Can you?

“If you don't like your internet provider, it is starting to be a norm that you can switch to another provider.”

Really? Where?

“The free market has a way of working things out.”

As long as it’s regulated.

“He who pays gets to make the rules.”

I’m sure the stock holders and exec’s at Comcast repeat this mantra to the FCC daily.

“The government starts paying, they will start more regulating.”

Good! Then maybe my internet/TV bill will be reduced to something I can actually afford. But more importantly:

MAYBE IF EVERYONE HAS ACCESS TO HIGH SPEED INTERNET THERE’S A CHANCE THAT MORE BUYERS MIGHT SEE MY LISTINGS OR SELLERS MIGHT DISCOVER MY WEBSITE AND SEE HOW WONDERFUL AND SMART I AM SO I CAN MAKE MORE MONEY!

Moral of the story; Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it . . .

Choosing between big business throttling back access or selling it to the highest bidder or big government with the almost inevitable application of unintended consequences is not a black or white issue. However, if the big telcos and cablecos are against net neutrality I think it's because they are looking to maximize revenue by selling access to big business (C-21, Prudential, Zillow, Redfin, Homestore) and throttling back the little guy(me).

I think it was FDR who brought Rural Electrification to farms and small communities and developing high-speed, competitively priced, internet access to rural America is just as important. Does Net Neutrality help or hinder this?

I don't like government over-involvement, however I don't like Comcast's death grip. I think this debate is a bit of a red herring. Because Clearwire and other cellular wireless internet companies will open it up and innovate. That is what the FCC should focus on. Wired Internet will be dead in 5 to 10 years tops!

Carl, You have some good points above, which again points to the fact of how complicated this whole thing is. It is obvious that we are totally controlled by comcast and the whatever the local phone company is. So we have 2 choices for fast speed internet and that is not healty competition. If what the government does, creates competition, then we are better off. If we replace comcast control with government control, who knows!

OCT

Jirius- I agree with you. It is a tough issue. The choices are both not that great. But it is through government interference that small businesses in the communications areas are not able to compete either. I just don't feel good about more government interference and control. Who knows, is right!

CIDM Real Estate- Capitilism is not the culprit here. Government interference and regulations are. The Right is just as much into big government as the left is as defined today.

However, they both don't have a clue as to how to allow free markets to move. When companies like ATT and Comcast and Google get as big as they are- it is about who in the government they are pals with. That is not a free market. That is not capitalism.

This is where people get the idea that somehow capitalism is evil. It is not evil. In a true Capitalist economy the small business get to grow up to be big but the market dictates pricing, supply and demand make companies grow or fail and so does bad management within companies.

But government regulations keep small companies small and pamper to big companies.

And believe me, this that I write is not popular among republicans or democrats because neither will get their cushy big company positions when they leave office if they did allowed free markets to work.

Big Pharma is only Big Pharma because they dictate to the FDA what rules to set forth squashing vitamin companies and herbal remedy companies every time they turn around. That is not a capitalist thing! That is a government interference thing! Then those FDA directors get to get multi million dollar positions at Big Pharma companies in return for pushing their poison while not allowing natural remedies to be sold to Americans.

Did you know that the FDA outlawed Stevia from being sold as a sweetener for years and years? Why would they do that to a plant that is proven to reduce diabetes and could help millions of people? Because Monsonto ( one of the most evil companies to ever exist) owned the trademark Nutrisweet, namely Aspertame. And even though Aspertame killed hundreds of people, the FDA did not take it off the shelf. Yet Stevia never killed anyone, can not be on the shelf. We had to sell it as a supplement and then explain to people in secret that it was a great sweetener without poisons in it that could be used to replace sugar for diabetics and others who did not want sucrose in their diets.

This is a perfect misunderstanding- it seems on the surface that evil capitalism is to blame when that is far from true. It was the fact that Monsonto bosses the FDA around and they sleep together. This is an example of business getting big not through capitalism and free markets but through government regulations which they used to their benefit and to the detriment of their competition. If the free markets were able to really be free, you would see Aspertame losing sales and Stevia gaining sales because we would have heard more about those deaths and the poisonous side effects of Aspertame. Which BTW actually makes Diabetes worse and ironically Aspertame was a sponsor of the Diabetes association for years. Yep, that is NOT capitalism, that is Government + Big Business which equals Totalitarism and Fascism.

And both parties in power have slept in bed with Big Pharma. This is just one example of nothing is at it seems. Katerina

Katerina,

I could not agree with you more. We are not a capitalist society, or a democracy. The country is run by large corporations in bed with the government because of lobbies and money. It does not matter which party it is. Most people just do not understand. In order for us to have a true democracy, we need to outlaw lobbyists and any donations by any groups or companies. Otherwise, the Republicans will keep blaming the government and the Democrats will want more government. They are both ignoring the main problem, which is that the country is run by the big corporations.

I could go on about big Pharma and the FDA in bed for 30 pages here if I wanted to and had the time. Chemo, flu shots, aspirin, Ibuprofin,etc, are all a waste of time and money and kill people all the time, and yet so many natural products cannot find their way to the people that need them because big Pharma stopped it dead.

The government is run by these lobbies, and the bigger and more organized they are, the more they control us all through the government. I do not think this will ever change, but we need to keep talking about this so people get it.

Jirius- Yes, don't even get me started on Chemo! Asperin kills more than 100,000 people a year and we never hear a word about it, over the counter, taken by direction, kills people. I can not even start here as that is not the subject of this post. But you are dead on right. The only group that I even see that realizes this are Libertarians. They have some groups for free markets that have done some great research but of course, it falls on deaf ears and both sides label the truth as some kind of looney thinking. Thanks for the conversation. I do write about the big pharma stuff and will again, passionate about spreading the word about it. Hey, we know all about the H1N1 Flu vaccine, don't we! Katerina

Keep the government out of free enterprise.

Hi All: I'm a "tech-head" and if it's ok, I'd like to explain what AT&T, some of Google, and the rest of big telecom is looking for here, and what 'we the people' have to lose.

First things first: Nothing is broken about the internet in its current state. We all send emails and browse the web at the speeds we paid for, or so we assume. The internet is a big complex monster with many moving parts, but today, "bandwidth" is not a guarantee. When you open your new 24Mbit AT&T U-Verse account they open your modem up to 24Mbits, so you have the ability to download files at blazing speeds. But what about the server you're getting your files from? What connection is it using? How many people are trying to download at that moment? Does that server have other responsibilities, like sending or receiving email, hosting multiple web sites, etc? These are all factors that prevent you from EVER DOWNLOADING A FILE AT 24Mbit.

Quality of Service: Today, many of you have the ability to control, using the router in your home or office, your quality of service. You can tell your router how much bandwidth it should expect to have, and then assign either limits or set priorities for each service you use. So those of you complaining about how your kids video-gaming habits are wrecking your ability to work or use the net, you are right... they are, but what you didn't know is that you can fix it any time you want to. The technology isn't just available. It's literally already in your house. (FYI: These settings can be found in QoS in your router, if your device supports it.)

The speed at which we surf the net isn't only dictated by the connection speed you purchased, and the server on the other end. It's also affected by the performance or loads various "pipes" and routers are experiencing in the world, and THIS is where net neutrality starts to get important, but understand that today the performance in this area of the internet is largely conditional, meaning that no one is out there changing settings, deliberately slowing things down, or messing with stuff.

Telecom companies believe this is their new frontier. A place where they stand to make billions in new untapped revenue. How? I'll explain in terms you can understand easily.

There are Three Real Estate Companies. One well established market leader that is doing very well, another long standing company that isn't doing as well, and a brand-new company that's just starting out. These companies are all hosting their websites at the same company, and they are served from the same server, so there performance is basically the same. Today, each company works to keep their site at the top of Google. Each company works to make their site better and easier for their clients to navigate. Today, each company can say that the benefit of their labor is commensurate with their effort and capabilities.

Net Neutrality seeks to protect this.

Without Net Neutrality: Big Telecom would like the ability to make money by beginning to play around in that area that, until now, has remained largely untouched by presenting each of these three companies with new options. Pay us a lot of money and your information will be served to visitors faster than the content by companies that don't pay us a lot of money. Pay us less and your information will be served in much the way it is now... maybe a little slower. Pay us nothing and your information will be served, but in the slowest, most painful fashion possible.

In short, AT&T and big telecom are looking for the freedom to mess with what is currently YOUR FREE MARKET!!! Your free market may very well find itself beholden to the will / hunger of big telecom over and above any i-efforts you make.

History:

Do any of you remember the telecommunications act that went up for a vote by the people when Clinton was elected to his second term? This was a great example of how people do NOT always have the answers.

Similarly, the pitch was that this bill would create competition by protecting small telecom companies' rights and ability to compete in larger markets. Sounds like a great plan, right? Free Market!!! Yay! GO FOR IT!!! ...and the American people did. Here's what their ignorance caused:

The people created a law that protected competition, thereby negating the argument that a true monopoly, by the government's definition, COULD exist, thereby opening the door for AT&T to begin to reacquire the baby bells it was split from so long ago. Did anyone wonder why AT&T sold off its cellular division to Cingular, only to repurchase it 13 months later? Did anyone notice that AT&T recently acquired BellSouth? Do you realize that AT&T will be the only telecom in the country, less one or two cable companies? This is ALL the result of the people's vote. BTW: Every ad that was run for the telecom bill I just mentioned was admittedly paid for by AT&T. They didn't even try to hide it.

Today, I'm listening to an argument that says we're safer in the arms of AT&T than we are in the arms of Government. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GOVERNMENT!!! THEY DON'T CARE WHAT YOU DO WITH THE INTERNET!!!!!! They are trying to preempt a terrible thing for the American People and American Small Businesses.

Net Neutrality is the defense against change on the internet, not a catalyst for it. THIS ONE ISN'T ABOUT SIDES PEOPLE! IT'S ABOUT OWNERSHIP!

If this DOESN'T pass, ActiveRain and most of the other sites you love so much won't be around long because Move.com has more money than AR does, so they lose by default. That's the kind of new world we're talking about.

Thanx for your time.

Jon- It already passed. The FCC is just making the rules surrounding net neutrality.

But you make a very good point about ATT and getting it chopped up into smaller parts only to come back and buy those smaller companies. My point is exactly that, the government protects those big companies, they sleep with them, they do each others' bidding and that is not a free market. You don't think that the lobbyists made sure it would happen that way? Again, government got involved with biz.

You can not tell me that the appointment of a Senator to a Google position is not a conflict to the American People.

What goes on behind closed doors is much different than what they allow us to see.

My point is that when government gets involved, it is not for the people. I don't get the idea that it is there to benefit us when all their actions have always been for many years now to just sell out to the highest bidder. That means that there is no free market and I would rather have to work harder and longer to pay for a faster internet speed than to ever allow the government come in with regulations as to what I can say and what I can not say on the internet. Which, the FCC has already done. Now we have to add all these disclosures to testimonials and disclose any benefit we may derive from a blog post. Whenever you watch one hand do something, the other hand is what we really need to be watching.

To each his own. I'm not sure you're getting what I'm trying to explain, but that's fine.

The bottom line is that the Telecoms will more than likely get what they want, as they almost always do. Highly competitive sectors will be the hardest hit. Sectors like yours.

Government! Get out of my [fill-in-the-blank] is simply what telecom has targeted for manipulation, probably because it's easy and seems to work. I suppose we should all thank you for what may prove to be the destruction of the last free market we have.

But you're right. Al least it won't be government. Big business has always proven to be far more trustworthy than them. Hasn't it?

I know they've already voted. The results don't really matter. These are some of the largest lobbies in the world, second only to NAR I believe. The fact is that Telecoms are on the road to messing up something that has undoubtedly had the greatest impact on modern man since the automobile, and we're talking about letting them do it because government is bad.

Let's also be VERY clear about something:

This isn't about you paying more for your faster access to the internet. Your access to the internet has nothing to do with this. NOT AT ALL. This is about how quickly your content is served. This is why I used that example of hosting.

Your connection to the Internet isn't going to change in any of this. It is the speed at which the content you seek is served. In the case of a business, the issue is the speed at which their data is served. Yes, the information they present to their clients!! Under what the Telecoms are proposing, if you don't pay at&t, broadband connected consumers will connect to YOUR SITE as if they were using a 56k modem, even though they have a fast connection, and you have a fast connection. AT&T would lower the priority of YOUR CONTENT on the internet. This isn't about money you're already spending. It's about money you never considered spending. THIS IS ENTIRELY NEW!!

Here is another issue: Right now, when you do a search on Google, you get a listing of sites that contain what you're looking for. Well, what if GAP paid at&t for all the traffic from at&t networks from people looking for clothing to be delivered to them, regardless of who they were looking for? This is the kind of stuff we're talking about.

If the Internet doesn't remain OPENED (content neutral), as it is today, we're screwed. The moment it becomes ok for the telecoms to analyze our requests and traffic and produce results they have been compensated to produce, we have a real problem. 95% of you, saying "Get Government off my Internet" will NEVER BE FOUND ON IT!!! Regardless of what you do. Independent news will be gone. Free Speech will be gone. As for the internet's use by researchers, history will, in fact, be written by those with the most money.

That's all I'm sayin'.

Be wise and be well.
Jon-

Jon- Thank you Jon for adding to the convesation and explaining so much. I appreciate your comments.

Thank you for your hospitality. I hope they're helpful. =]

OCT

Damn Jon, you should have written a post about this! Obviously you know more than average man on this subject.

On the reserach I did, I found Google, Twitter and Facebook were all in favor of Net Neutrality- and somehow the arguement got twisted into the that government was going to take over the internet- oy vey!

Thanx Nogui:

I guess people have forgotten where 'the Internet' came from. It is a gift from government, and right now, it's public. Companies have invested a lot for additional infrastructure and as a result, ownership of the internet, and who owns the majority of it has become a real issue.

Telecoms are just laying the groundwork for total or majority ownership of the internet. We can't let it happen, and the evil government is probably the only defense we have.

I'm really nervous about the fact that so much of the right is against net neutrality. Is it because the Dems may get credit for it? This issue is bigger than politics, and those that make it political MAY be the cause of the loss of the last free market.

Again, this isn't a political or government issue. Lets defend what we have. Net Neutrality MUST PASS because the internet belongs to the people of the world, not the telecoms.

PS - I hope that people aren't confusing their paid connectivity to the internet with telecom's ownership of it. It would be like a cab company applying for the right to set the speed limit on our roads to 20mph, but if you paid for a cab, they could drive the same roads at 150mph, getting those who could afford to take a cab to their destinations faster.

What right does a cab company have to dictate the rules of the road? They use them just like everyone else, no? BUT THEY DON'T OWN THEM!!!

Jon-

We have to keep track of all these things. I can't even imagine what this sphere will look like in 3 years or wonder what we'll be able to do. Many people, government alike, are trying to wrestle with what this can do for the good and the bad.

The bigger the government, the less the people matter. It's all about power and a free market will balance itself IF the government allows it to. I'm so tired of Uncle Sam deciding this or that needs government controls. We're heading toward communism and those who are really paying attention and saying something about it are being mocked and derided. The idea that everyone "deserves" a product is dangerous. We "deserve" the right to earn it.

The "product" you're talking about it owned by the American People. It was developed and paid for by the United States of America for military purposes and almost immediately retired because it lacked the speed the government required. Note that all this happened in 1956. It sat, doing nothing for all these years until someone (perhaps Al Gore... hahaha!!) figured out that there was a real business opportunity in its revival.

All the money that has been spent has been by private companies to allow all of us to connect to it is where their opportunity has always been, until telecoms "presumed" ownership of something that is and has always been ours. (I grant the telecoms that they have done a LOT to improve and expand it.)

Again, I don't believe this is an issue of government or communism. The internet is quite literally a gift the American People unknowingly bestowed upon themselves. The issue is whether or not you want it to change to a purely commercial venue for communication and placed it unfairly out of reach of the American People, for whom (and by whom) it was originally created.

I'm not trying to say that mine is the only valid point. It isn't. There are undoubtedly many additional opportunities for business on the net, but converting it to a non-neutral medium is a staggering concept... It's mind-blowing really. Nothing about the net would remain as it is today, and that is scary.

I sincerely apologize if ANYTHING I've said that resembles mocking. It wasn't intentional. But this business of changing the internet is bad for people. The fact that people seem to be confused about what the government is attempting to do is scary. All they're trying to do is defend what we have. It is the telecoms that are attempting to change it in a way that none of us will like.

It is just my belief that anyone who doesn't want the government to defend this needs to come up with a better figurehead, but assuming that because Government is behind this, it is, by definition bad, is a fatal misstep on all our parts.

PS - I honestly had no intension of jacking this post, so I won't say another word on the subject unless asked.

My apologies again to anyone that may feel mocked by my comments.

Jon, In my opinion, you are not hijacking this post. I have apprecited all that you have written. It is a very confusing subject to say the least.

OCT

Nestor. I think that they should just leave the net alone. It will cost too much time and money to enforce.

Jon- You have been more than civil. You added not just your opininon, but your research and your understanding of the subject. You are not hijacking my post. If you were, you would be the first to hear about it from me. You are more than welcome to add to the conversation no matter how lengthy and detailed that may be me.

You taking the time to ever write all of this shows your passion on the subject and that is commendable. At least you know something and take the time to do something about what you believe.

I agree with that there is a dilemna. I have different thoughts based on different places of reference. My feelings are formed just as your are based on our perceptions, our research and how we internalize those things. This world would be very boring if we all thought the same.

I write posts on which to debate to welcome debate as long as there is no name calling or disrespectful behavior of those with opposite views from each other. We can not grow without debate and without wanting to know what others believe and see and think.

Some of my good friends are on total opposite sides of the political spectrum than I am but we are still very good friends and know that we can agree to disagree.

You are welcome to add to the conversation. Katerina

Interesting post. I think you misunderstand the issue of net neutrality or I do. I'm a former telco executive and this issue came up in the late 90's and the early 2000's. I'm all for the democratic issue and power to the people. Just like you are.

Perhaps the politicians have morphed this issue as well. Originally net neutrality meant that all sites would be treated equally. It wasn't as much as our homes would have speed regulated, but it would be regulated on the back end once you hit the backbone of the Internet. So it was a situation where a provider like Comcast or Verizon could steer you to there movie download or music site. Sites could also pay more to get faster access. I don't want to work for one of the big franchise brokers, they don't have a lot to offer me. If this went through I might have to consider it. People go to your website, very nice by the way, to search for homes or information. What would happen if the REMAX, KW, or other company had much faster load times because they paid for it. The big guys could crush the little guys. That is the original intent of net neutrality. I think in this case you would be for it.

Now what you are talking about is access to broadband everywhere. If the Dumbocrats linked this to net neutrality it is one of the worst political manipulations I have seen. I live in Denver, CO and have a wide variety of choices for broadband. If you live in Goodland, CO you probably don't have as many choices as I do. There is probably less traffic, not as much entertainment, and taxes are lower. It's a choice about where you live people. The government should get out of this part of the equation.

I've been an agent almost a year now and between learning all I can about real estate, blogging, contracts, seo etc. This slipped by on my radar. Saw your post and had to comment on it.

Mike- I think the problem as usual is the government is going to take something that we all agree on, not messing with our access or our chance to make it big as anyone else on the internet and turn it into something entirely different- is that not what they are known to do? And then create a mess? Of course none of us want to get screwed in the process. I understand more as the conversation develops what this was initially about and then what it is becoming. I wish we had a law that said, that they could only decide one thing at a time, one issue, just like one bill with one law in it, not pages and pages of garbage even trial lawyers don't understand at first reading. Thanks for commenting. Katerina

Leave a response…

Name:

Email:
(optional)

Comment:

What does the graphic say?