• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Republicans against free Internet

WildCat said:
You don't like free market capitalism Bob?
Click to expand...

The internet is a non-rivalrous, excludable good, sometimes called a club good. Those types of goods do not lend themselves to efficient allocation by a free market.

I didn't say I was pro, or anti net neutrality (as a whole, I would say I am reluctantly pro). I do have serious issues with calling net neutrality the "free" position.
 
BobTheCoward said:
The internet is a non-rivalrous, excludable good, sometimes called a club good. Those types of goods do not lend themselves to efficient allocation by a free market.

I didn't say I was pro, or anti net neutrality (as a whole, I would say I am reluctantly pro). I do have serious issues with calling net neutrality the "free" position.
Click to expand...

Let's call it the "sensible regulation" position.
 
BobTheCoward said:
The internet is a non-rivalrous, excludable good, sometimes called a club good. Those types of goods do not lend themselves to efficient allocation by a free market.
Click to expand...
What are you blathering about? You are confusing the actual internet infrastructure with internet content.

BobTheCoward said:
I didn't say I was pro, or anti net neutrality (as a whole, I would say I am reluctantly pro). I do have serious issues with calling net neutrality the "free" position.
Click to expand...
You're obviously against net neutrality, because you don't even appear to understand what it is. And in my experience 100% of people who don't understand net neutrality are against it.
 
WildCat said:
What are you blathering about? You are confusing the actual internet infrastructure with internet content.


You're obviously against net neutrality, because you don't even appear to understand what it is. And in my experience 100% of people who don't understand net neutrality are against it.
Click to expand...

Good point on the first. The infrastructure would be (could be) similar to natural monopolies where economies of scale creates barriers to entry. Another area where government intervention makes sense.

I agree in part with net neutrality. In situations where types of traffic are similar (yahoo mail versus google mail, facebook versus google plus), and ISP-media corporations (comcast-nbc) would see economic advantage of restricting competitors, I see a lot of plus side to government regulation.
 
WildCat said:
Not at all.

Microsoft has the same freedom of speech rights as another corporation, the New York Times.
Click to expand...

And their ability to get that speech out is dependent on how much money they have, which net neutrality undermines. The principle of one is that money is speech so those with more money get to be heard more, and the other is exactly the opposite of it.
 
WildCat said:
"Speech equals money" is just the bumper sticker version of the principle that under the 1st Amendment anyone can buy all the advertising they wish. You can speak freely, but getting that message out is costly.
Click to expand...

And why is putting a fast lane onto the internet so counter to that? Why shouldn't those who pay for it get better distribution? They do that in any other form of media after all.
 
bikerdruid said:
unless you value freedom of speech.:rolleyes:
american right wingnuts only value freedom of speech, if they agree with that speech.
Click to expand...

Human rights? No. Innovation, competition and technology? Yes. Not being able to access the content providers of your choice at high speeds is vastly different than being tortured because of a voiced opinion.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
Net neutrality has absolutely NOTHING to do with human rights.
Click to expand...

Cow cookies. The internet could not exist without government's acting to ensure that the infrastructure could be built. Now that the infrastructure is there, the ISPs have no right to put a toll booth on it.
End of debate.
 
leftysergeant said:
Cow cookies. The internet could not exist without government's acting to ensure that the infrastructure could be built. Now that the infrastructure is there, the ISPs have no right to put a toll booth on it.
End of debate.
Click to expand...

I disagree and agree at the same time. I agree that the government help built it, and I agree that an ISP has no "right" to put up a toll booth.

I disagree that this ends the debate. The questions if it is a rights issue at all or about the restrictions of freedom imposed are valid.
 
bikerdruid said:
unless you value freedom of speech.:rolleyes:
american right wingnuts only value freedom of speech, if they agree with that speech.
Click to expand...

The only freedom of speech you have is to keep the government from shutting you up.

AOL isn't the government.
 
Newtons Bit said:
How does a lack of net neutrality violate anyone's human rights?
Click to expand...

If ISPs can determine the content of what goes on the Internet, if private companies have the right to deny certain points of view, it certainly does violate First Amendment rights to freedom of expression.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom