the tea party once again calls into question it idienty as a grassroots orgnization by opposing net neutrality. Yes the tea party feels that the government regulating the internet to ensure that ISP's can't favor certain sites is them censoring the internet.
I would say regulating a news service by telling them what they can or cannot print or display on their website is the epitome of censorship. What do you call it?
I mean, really. The solution to one-sided punditry is government mandated "free" choice? Instead of that nasty right-wing FOX tripe, our beneficent government has come up with plan where they will force both left and right wing government talking points at you at the same time! What a wonderful solution.
I think what happened is that he literally saw the phrase "Tea Party" and began foaming at the mouth whacking his keyboard with his fists as hard and as fast as he could with the first thing that came to mind... But for the record, it is kind of weird that they would oppose Net Neutrality.
Privatisation and restriction of the net (if I understand correctly) would not be in anybody’s benefit. Not even the tea party’s.
the irony being that the end of net neutrality would hamper something like the tea party from gaining traction.
It was not the phrase "tea party" that caught my attention. Nor was it net neutrality. Nay. It was that ridiculous article, and.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/ and here is the link a little later than promised and for that I apolagize
I don't think that is completely accurate. Non-net neutral pricing by ISPs would allow faster access to those more willing to pay for it...that need not even mean "the rich" as each person will have a different proce point for different content. Videoconferencing services and streaming HD movies are high bandwidth, but presumably those willing to pay for them are willing to pay some premium (at least from time to time). Since those services also crowd out other uses of the net, though, it can make sense to charge more to stream them. Non-neutral pricing ensures, in theory, that high bandwidth services cost mosre than low bandwidth ones. Done right (and there are questions as to whether it would be) it should result in a more efficient allocation of available bandwidth than a system that prices all online services at the same rate. The plus side of net neutrality is that the poor and low-value services will never be entirely crowded out, but it's not quite that "everybody wins."
I'm happy with the internet as is. I see net neutrality as a solution in search of a problem. I fear that putting the internet under the thumb of the FCC may do more harm than good.
That choice you don't have. There's money to be made, by divvying up net access and selling the pieces. Do nothing, and that will happen.
If true, this only reveals the Tea Party's corporate roots. The FCC should regulate to keep the free flow of information universal and democratic! Information was so vital to our founders that they started an information distribution network that exists to this day, the post office. It's no wonder that the cons want to control this (by leaving it to corporate interests) and bend it to their perverse will.
I am really not sure which side to back in this debate, but I am often surprised how little analysis is done. It's a complicated issue. Net neutrality sounds good in theory, but it is in effect a price control. I can imagine abuses in a free market due to oligopolistic (rather than pure) competition, but I wonder if less ham fisted regulation might not be more effective. The funny thing is that this is very much an economic debate, but the economics are rarely discussed (beyond "greedy corporations" rhetoric). The effect of price controls will almost certainly be congestion, a suboptimal growth in the internet infrastructure...and not necessarily low prices for access like we presently happen to enjoy. Net neutrality only requires that there be no price discrimination amongst uses, not that it be affordable for all, and unless the government takes over the provision of access to people, it will still be private companies that serve as gatekeepers for most people. They will want a profit, and not necessarily a low one that allows participation by all. In effect the internet is like public roads except that roads are a government provided service...we tend to think of roads as requiring government oversight, and often confuse them with a public good. In reality, they are not a public good because increased use leads to traffic jams as the space in the road is occupied (temporarily). One solution for the internet then, the anti-net neutrality solution, is to treat them in the way some libertarians sometimes suggest for the roads, which is a free market solution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_roads The arguments on both sides are largely the same, except that we expect private companies will continue to provide access for most people. That's why I think I tend to wonder about the middle roads...regulations that are not as simple minded as "one price for everything" but that nonetheless curb the monopoly power that seems likely to distort the market.
