Six Senators Support ISPs In Net Neutrality Battle

that Ron Paul OPPOSES Net Neutrality because it is interference in free enterprise and markets. If some ISPs will limit their consumers, they will suffer from loss of subscribers who will migrate to the best deal, as has always been the case with the internet.

Look at the cell-phone industry as a relative example. Sprint has been bleeding subscribers so they are forced to introduce new programs such as free calls to anyone on any network with a mobile phone, anytime. Do you think they would do this if all providers were forced to be on the same ground? The free market provides for itself eventually. Government interference is a protection racket no matter how you look at it and even if the precedent established here is not used against subscribers today, someone eventually will.

Dr. Paul makes a similar comparison in his BookTV discussion of End the Fed when he tells the story of sitting down with then-Fed chief Paul Volker, who insisted legislative powers he was asking for would only be used to control inflation and restrict expansion. Paul correctly predicted that someone else down the line would use them to create it, i.e. Greenspan and Bernanke. All of this support for reactionary legislation is to be expected from the government statists, but from the DailyPaul? Come on.

See here:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/01/29/ron-paul-softens-stance...

MA: To jump right in, I think you have in the past, I believe, stated that with regard to net neutrality, government interference in the marketplace that you’re opposed to that policy. Is that something that you wish to clarify?

RP: Well, it’s something that I have an open mind to because of the complete understanding of how I’m going to solve a problem, which government helped create. I just don’t like solving problems with more government regulation and I see some of the solutions as more regulation. But I also see the problem coming, because governments too often have given licensing privileges to certain groups and phone companies and providers. So it’s something I really struggle with and hope that I can come up with something that is practical and also consistent with my philosophy that you don’t resort to government regulation, because I want to be very consistent. I don’t want the government involved in the internet and I don’t want taxes on internet. And I may not understand everything I have to about the internet, but I do know one thing. That we can’t allow the government intrusion into the internet, because there has even been moves on for international controls and international taxation and to me it’s a saving grace. We, in our campaign, can get around the mainstream media mainly because of this.
So I’m very, very caution, but I’m also very open to finding solutions to some of these problems I think the government created.

does anyone know under what Constitutional Authority they have in doing this?

Perhaps, the commerce clause which was designed to keep states from unfairly regulating other states' imports?

if not, then it seems packet preference filtering is just another example of how to circumvent the Constitution. If you can't achieve something through government, then just do it through a corporation.

I just called my sentors office and let them have it. I mean I was barely civil.

My point was that there are technical issues here and that the lack of new regulation may actually produce the opposite effect and that I thought the senator may not understand the technicalities involved.

1. What current, SPECIFIC, problems/issues it would supposedly correct.

2. One example related to TELECOM where GOV intervention did not result, rapidly, in protection for the BIG Telecoms/Anti-competition.

Thanks

"control - limit" the Internet? I, too, am confused.

Corrections Corporation of America. It is a scam and a huge threat to liberty. We need regulation with things that belong to the People like the internet and utilities. The sad thing is the regulation we get serves the corporations not the people so either way we are gonna get f*cked as usual.

"Countless people will hate The New World Order and will die protesting against it"- H.G Wells - The New World Order (1939)

Be very careful with this subject. Just remember what the Gubment does: labels a bill the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the the bill really does. So, while this "Net Neutrality" may be a good thing (I've not studied it enough), but it could also be a huge threat to Freedom.

The Internet is the biggest threat to the NWO, and they will do whatever is necessary to kill free internet speech. I've heard arguments on both sides that say NN is bad, and no NN is bad. Why must we do anything? Why should I trust the Chairman of the FCC?? (I don't) Be suspicious.

Just sayin...

Say YES to Dr. NO

***********Ron Paul for POTUS 2012***********
*************Obama Is A Communist!************
**********Repeal the 17th Amendment**********
Double the size of the House of Representatives
$$$$$$$$$AUDIT THE FEDERAL RESERVE$$$$$$$$$$

bump.