Should You Care About Net Neutrality? - Comments Page 2

> ...a friend of mine has written an opinion on Net Neutrality that is thoughtful and deserves your consideration.

C'mon Bob. You call this socialist rant "thoughtful"? You're better than that.

I really was hoping for a piece that was informative and thoughtful...but I didn't get it here. By posting this piece you've done nothing to un-muddy the water surrounding this issue. But I don't know if anyone can, because opinions on this all seem based on "what we think", not what we know. (I'm talking about all of us.) There's little real, hard, analytical data available with which to form a rational opinion.

Bob, your friend's opinion contains too much partisanship and too little informativeness to
be convincing for someone interested in learning
facts.

People, the only reason you have freedom is because it is mandated in the Constitution : GOVERNMENT. The role of government in this case, and as implied in at least a couple of proceeding comments, is not regulation, but guaranteeing freedom. The freedom to visit the websites you want to visit, without interference. That is what Net Neutrality means.

The collectivist author of this rant believes it is “Orwellian” to think that lessening regulation of the Internet would mean an increase in freedom. Or that more government regulation means less freedom. But this is a self-evident proposition to those of us who do not believe that “Freedom is Slavery”.

It is unlikely that net neutrality will lead to the restriction that customers will have to lease computers and cell phones from ISPs as was the case with telephones when the FCC regulated telephone service as a public utility. But the point is that the commission would have the authority to order that, along with any other bit of mischief they could think of. And there has been a 5 to 7% decline in Internet investment since the new rule was imposed, which means less innovation, the hallmark of the web.

For those concerned about the undue influence of evil big business, I would like to point out that Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Twitter and Snapchat, among others, all favor keeping “net neutrality”.

I do not know why there are not more choices in choosing an internet provider. But I suspect it’s one or more of the usual suspects, government regulation at the Federal, state, or local level, that restricts competition. Increasing competitiveness is the proper palliative to any oligopolistic abuses of ISPs.

A key point the Anti-Net Neutrality people seem to miss and the ISPs want you to forget: Net Neutrality is *not* about "Regulating the Internet." Net Neutrality *is* about regulating the Internet Service Providers.

It is the ISPs that are fighting against Net Neutrality regulations. Content providers (those that are not already wholly-owned by ISPs) are for Net Neutrality so that they have a fair market against those ISP-owned assets.

If ISPs only just provided access to "the Internet" we would not have a problem. But ISPs have a vested stake in some Internet services and want to promote those services to the degradation of non-owned services. Thus Comcast will push NBC they own it; and will make others harder to access, slower or otherwise less desirable because they don’t. And if they say they will never do that, they lie – otherwise they would not be fighting against Net Neutrality so much.

Keep the Internet Free – don’t let Internet Service Providers decide what you get to see and how you get to see it.

I've written to my Senators and Congresswoman. I received responses from 2. Sen. Thom Tillis of NC is in favor of repealing Net Neutrality. Congresswoman Alma Adams is for keeping things as they are. Sen. Richard Burr did not reply, I'm guessing because he's most likely in favor of the repeal.

The sad thing about this and other current issues under attack by the federal government is that no matter how many people voice their opinions, the politicians will do whatever they want.

There's pros and cons on both sides of "net neutrality". I had hopes that your friends "thoughtful" opinion would give a balanced unbiased discussion of both sides. That said, the writer lost me when he said, "Republican cronies". Wow. No need to even read the rest of the opinion. I've just been slammed at the start of the op-ed. Along, perhaps, with most other Republicans.

Bob: You need a friend that understands economics. Using net "neutrality" logic we would all be using the same laptop, wearing the same sneakers and all driving a Ford Focus.

I would rather comparison shop and spend my money on what I want, rather than what the government says I should "need."

Mme Moxie, please look up your data on highway & auto safety before claiming no change since the 1960s. Fatalities are down by rate and in total even as miles driven rose. Seatbelts, air bags and improved vehicle design lower the consequences of a collision. Roadways are safer as well. Local, state & federal government rules made those improvements happen. If you dislike government so, and I will suppose you dislike referees & umpires in sports as well, you will need to find a better example of its clear failure to make life better for people.

Bob, thanks for sharing your friend's letter. Excellent analysis. The only people scarier than the right-wing conservative christian fundamentalists are libertarians IMNSHO.

Your thoughtful friend needs a little Logic 101. After praising the growth and innovation of the internet, all of which occurred before the Obama "net neutrality" rule, he then claims that a return to the pre-rule era would "murder" the internet and be "disastrous." Huh? How then did the internet flourish in that disastrous and murderous era?
I'm not inclined to give much weight to an analysis that consists of attacking the other side as "cronies" and "henchmen." And the net neutrality proponents don't just attack rhetorically -- have you read about the threats to Pai and his family? More reason to think that maybe they don't really have good arguments on their side.

Riccardo, I'm also glad you don't live in the USA.

Hi Bob. I must say I am sorely disappointed with this post. There are ways to express ones point, and there are WAYS. Radical left wing liberals, such as Mr. David Hakala, are every bit as annoying as radical right wing conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh. The very tone set of Mr Hakala's rant put every point he tried to make into question for me. I have valued your newsletters over the years, but, this fiasco here will make me question the validity of many of your articles. I read your newsletters for their objectivity, not for political bias. I can get that kind of bull from CNN.

I would have to agree with the opinions that this would be better expressed more objectively. Name calling and labeling of those one opposes is counter productive. Divisive language is one that leads no where. I support Net Neutrality. Others don't. I respect their position and would rather debate and investigate than name call. perhaps we all need to read the book "All I needed to know I learned in kindergarten". Question, does name calling help or hinder? Hinder I think.