Do you support net neutrality?

As long as I dont use profanity I stand by what I say

That video is a prime example of why net neutrality is a load of BS. If a particular network has an extreme amount of traffic going through it, it would be logical to boost the bandwidth temporarily to accommodate it.

If I can pay for a faster connection then someone else, I want that option. I don't need the government stepping in because if that does happen everything will be slowed down. Would you really want to go back to dial up days in order to be "fair"? I guarantee if this ever comes to be, there will be a push for "free" internet and then that will be the end of high-speed access as we know it to be.

You give the government an inch, they will take a mile and more.

They want to give control of the internet to the same people who brought you FEMA and the IRS?

Really?

Absolutely Not!

that lady obviously has never driven through Dallas! If you do 70mph you'll get ran over by the lady doing 85 while putting on makeup and reading a book at the same time- in pouring down rain. Al Frankin needs to go play on LBJ Freeway.

Unless their regulation is very specific
In terms of protecting against porn/child porn/child/female exploitation/torture content,

or

Companies are Regulated/Prevented from Buying Internet access to gain an unfair advantage over their competitors.

OTHERWISE STAY THE HELL OFF MY INTERNET!!!!!

If big corporations support it and small businesses don't, there's your sign.

Hell no, GOVT spying in on the net and watching your every MOVE..
HELL NO..stay out of my LIFE..
and their is NO PLEASE with that DEMAND

Net Neut is just another way for Obamanov to control the net... He can not stand the fact tat people on the web critic him.... If he had the means to know what I hav said about him as the sleeper agent for the Muslim Brotherhood, I would probably be in jail or dead... He is a sleeper agent!!! He proved it when he stood with HAMAS on the Israeli border issue

I normally do not like the govement butting in ,but from my understand of net neutrality if they do not do something, it is possible for companies to take money from other companies to control what I can and can not do or see on the internet . EX: At&t; gives Google money so when I search for phone services, At&t; services shows up only or more than other providers do.Which someone may think they offer better services or rates than the other providers do .Which may not always be the case.

Trading freedom for security, you deserve nether, and what the hell makes you think that the practice will go away by govt interdiction? Like china or the issue of radio station lisence in texas during LBJ or like cardcheck is better by eliminating the secret vote, or y the honesty of the politicians that don't pay their taxes?

Never. They already control Network news, now they want to pollute or dispose of my only source left for truth?

Far better for corporations to control what content you have access to.

not that it matters...if Uncle Sam wants...Uncle Sam takes.

A couple years ago I sat in on a college classroom (I was visiting my Alma mater) that was discussing net neutrality. The professor presented this subject as if it were as benign as the energy grid. To summarize her approach and teaching, she said "Net Neutrality simply tries to make the internet as non-discretionary as the power outlet on your wall."



Ah, if only D.C. were that way...

Keep the GOVERNMENT out of our PERSONAL lives!

The idea of letting the monopoly telephone companies like Verizon or monopoly cable companies like Comcast dictate how fast my content is delivered is simply unacceptable. Without net neutrality, expect these two "service providers" to dramatically limit the content you see and expect Google, Amazon, and Microsoft (aka, Yahoo) to dominate your internet services including news.

If you dont like it when corporations limiting your content, you're gonna hate it when the government does it.

AMEN!

We have net neutrality today. You are proposing a change and clearly don't remember how difficult it was to break AT&T's stranglehold on the US long distance market. You take the current communication freedom for granted.

There are a number of executives at Verizon and Comcast that are striving to restore the 50s when you could get any telephone you wanted as long as it was made by Western Electric and you rented it from ATT for $9 / month. Can you imagine in 1970, you paid more to rent a telephone each month than it costs to buy one today?

I hate it now that the government got its mitts on it.

Throughout my lifetime, government regulation of the telecommunications market has declined dramatically. There was a time when you could get any long distance provider you wanted as long as you wanted AT&T. You could get any cable company you wanted as long as the local government had signed an agreement with the company...and generally, these agreements granted the cable company a monopoly and defined the prices a cable company could charge.

The internet was a military research project that grew up into what it is today.

Suggesting "now the government got it mitts on it" demonstrates you have no understanding of the history. Without the government there would be no internet.

You seem to be implying that the government has an inherent right to control the "internet" because of a U.S. DOD sponsored research project in the 70's.

Wow.

Sort of....I am suggesting that government regulation of the internet is a continuation of the status quo rather than the introduction of new regulation.

Hmmm....a continuation of the status quo, yet it seems to have only recently become a rather aggressively discussed issue, by both the general public as well as politicians supporting and opposing it.

You sound like a politician.

It has become aggressively discussed because Comcast and Verizon want to charge those who deliver services over the internet and under current regulations cannot do so.

Essentially the FCC has said, when you charge customers for unlimited internet access, you must deliver unlimited internet access and cannot regulate the customer's use of the internet. Comcast and Verizon would like to charge folks like Netflicx for delivering movies. Is it possible Netflix is cutting into their revenues for pay per view? and cable TV? Nah that wouldn't be the reason they oppose net neutrality. I am sure they have your best interests in mind.

I see nothing wrong with them wanting to charge "folks" like Netflix for delivering movies....Sorry.

You believe the government is more likely to have your/my best interests at heart...I simply disagree...Always will....Always have.

And especially the current administration.

Conceptually...if the government doesn't represent your best interests, you elect a new government. But reality is a bit more complex. The difference between us is I consider Verizon, Comcast, and other very large companies an extension of government.

To expound a bit...this means I consider the debate on net neutrality to be a discussion about whether these prices will be set through in a process of public hearing or behind closed doors during bilateral contract negotiations.

Since basic premise of capitalism is free public knowledge of prices, I consider openness critical to competition.

Oh, so you are a full-fledged capitalist, are you?

Yes...but not a libertarian. I played with libertarian capitalism as a philosophy and discovered it disregarded Adam Smith's basic principles of capitalism. It primarily fails because it doesn't provide a mechanism to limit the power of market participants. When power plays a bigger role in the market than price, you have mercantilism and not capitalism. I am strongly opposed to mercantilism and believe this country was established to over throw British mercantilism. So I would go so far as to say mercantilism which many call capitalism today is unAmerican.

The basic premise underlying the economics of capitalism is that information on price and quality are ubiquitous and free. This premise while false is reasonable for commodities. Any first year student of economics can demonstrate why monopolies are not in the public interest. With a little thought, this student will quickly realize that the lack of pricing information or high cost price information when combined with trivial product differentiation creates local monopolies where capitalism cannot thrive. The role of the government is to prevent this from happening.

Your wordy comments are fine if you so choose, but not really necessary.

In previous comment before this most recent one you state -

"Since basic premise of capitalism IS free public knowledge of prices, I consider openness critical to competition."

In this most recent reply, you state -

"The basic premise underlying the economics of capitalism is that information on price and quality are ubiquitous and free. This premise while FALSE ..."

Sounds as though you consider what you deem a "false premise" to to be critical to competition.

You also state - "The basic premise..." -- THE basic premise?

Considering your choice to try and impress with words, why not simply say -- "A basic, but false premise..." in the first place?

I agree with your statement that monopolies are not in the public interest....I agree with it because I see government, especially the current administration, as one which favors a monopoly, and that monopoly is itself.

If I don't accept the false premise, I must reject capitalism. Since capitalism has been demonstrated to work better than mercantilism, I must assume the premise is less false than the alternatives.

So, what is the TRUE premise of capitalism, which you apparently reject, (having admitted that you are a capitalist), in order that you ARE able to accept capitalism?

Please use as many words as you can.

Your little twists and turns and wordy attempts to impress are not really working all that well IMO.

Nothing personal, but you seem to be trying to role play as some kind of objective "authority" by attempting to deliver uniquely-excessive, snaky commentary on what is no more than common, subjective opinion.

The basic theory of capitalism is the "invisible hand" will drive the price of goods and services to the cost if consumers and producers are given free choice. Costs, of course, include the cost of capital. Economic profits, i.e., profits that exceed the cost of capital, are only made by innovating and any such profits are temporary since others will copy the innovation.

This theory can be proven if you make a few simplifying premises; 1) Information about price and availability of goods is accessible and free to all consumers and producers so they adjust their choices using this information; 2) There is not cost to change supplier or sell to a new customer; 3) An increase in price results in an increase in supply without a time lag. There may be one or two more that I have forgotten since my introductory economics classes.

Obviously each of these premises only approximates the truth. This is why I eventually abandoned the concept of pure laisez faire capitalism. I still believe the best government is the one that governs least but recognize without some regulation the markets become irrational.

Sorry for the lecturing. I just am often frustrated with the uneducated opinions expressed and so feel a need to share the theory with my conclusions and opinions.

No need to lecture me...Whether or not my opinions fall into your idea of "educated or "uneducated" is insignificant to me...I am 99.9% sure I have had as much formal education and life experience as you may have had.

What do you think is Obama's preferred kind of capitalism, or is there one?

I have no opinion about Obama's position on capitalism. I do believe capitalism is more alive today than it was in October, 2008.