L.A. Times: Google has started lobbying to get the internet regulated (!)

The Internet is a distributed network that can survive a major nuclear attack across the infrastructure. Due to this distributed structure, no single company or group of companies can control data flow through the Internet. These fears that some company will throttle speeds just strike me as shockingly ignorant in areas like technology and innovation.

Read this article with Bob Khan, the father of the Internet, as he explains why he is against Net Neutrality:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/18/kahn_net_neutrality_...

Let's socialize the internet. Give everyone equal access. Don't let private owners restrict access from the people.

No thanks. I think private property rights works better.

Regulation == violation of rights!
The "internet" is a bunch of networks (most of which are privately owned), that are connected to each other through private contract. Regulating this means the government tells network owners what they can and can't do with their own property, and what they can and can't contract with other network owners.

Regulation == government intervention!
I think nearly everyone that visits this site regularly understands that this is already a bad thing. This is basically synonymous with "violation of rights".

Regulation == decreased competition!
The more regulation in a market, the higher the barrier to entry, which results in less competition. Less competition leads to lower quality of service and higher prices. Less competition by definition leads towards monopolies, since a monopoly is a company that has become the sole provider of a good or service, which means they have no competition. If a monopoly happened naturally, it wouldn't be a big deal, since it was due to providing better goods/services at better prices than competitors, but regulation knocks out competition by increasing the cost of doing business.

Net Neutrality == subsidizing!
By forcing all network owners to treat all data packets the same, instead of possibly finding more efficient ways to manage their networks, which would allow for cheaper ISP plans for users that do little on their internet connection, and charge power users more for faster connections that support more services. This means the power user gets their internet connection for cheaper than they otherwise would at the expense of average users that do much less with their internet. This is subsidization, though in a not so obvious way.

The more the government gets involved with the internet, the less efficient ISP's will become, competition will decrease (hard to stay profitable and in business with extra work to do due to regulation), prices will go up, and the problems caused by the regulation will be followed by more regulation to "solve" those problems.

Right now in most places in the u.s., there's usually just one cable internet provider and one DSL internet provider at any geographical location, as determined by the local government (due to bribes or however else they might choose the ISP). This means if your cable internet sucks, that's too bad. It's either that or switch to your far slower, and more expensive bandwidth per dollar DSL internet option. Usually your only option outside of that is even more expensive bandwidth/$ dial-up connection, which is barely usable to anyone that's had some sort of "broadband" connection. If local government's weren't allowed to contract with ISP's, and just let the individuals there work out with whatever ISP they want service from, and let the ISP work out with property owners where they can run their cables, there'd be better service and cheaper prices, since customers would actually be able to choose their providers competitor if they start slacking, or their competitor later offers a better service/$ to get more customers. This is how

To want net neutrality is extremely foolish.

...Just a thought...

(I rarely visit this site anymore (especially since Republicae hasn't been here...his posts were about the only interesting thing left on this site), but I happened to check it today and saw this comment and decided I should say something)

Net Neutrality is the beginning of a regulatory system that of course promises equality (like everything else in America) but does the opposite.

Google is heavily engaged in monitoring and censoring the internet in China and various other countries. They work in tandem with the government to oppress the most populated country on Earth.

Regulations are always 'for your best interests', but google is part of the CFR and supported Obama. They are archiving all of your search results and have agreed to hand them over to the government.

In fact they are organizing the information and securing it for the government.

MSN

Isidorus

Jambot

Yahoo

Ask

Socialists are Everywhere

I didn't have much time so I gave up and just now tried again...working ok now!

*****
"I truly wish that real life would no longer surpass the worst excesses of my nightmarish imaginings... Arthur Silber **