Gun rights group leaves Net Neutrality coalition

posted at 2:20 pm on August 23, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The coalition pushing Congress to enact Net Neutrality legislation lost one of its key players after Red State questioned its judgment in selecting political bedfellows.  Gun Owners of America announced their withdrawal from Save the Internet after it became clear that the group had strong ties to MoveOn, SEIU, and ACORN, among others.  STI had bragged about GOA’s membership as a way to paint their coalition as broad based:

A bipartisan coalition in favor of net neutrality has lost a key conservative supporter amid signs that the issue is becoming divisive.

The Gun Owners of America (GOA) severed ties with the net-neutrality coalition Save the Internet after a conservative blog questioned the association with liberal organizations such as ACORN and the ACLU.

The blog RedState described Save The Internet as a “neo-Marxist Robert McChesney-FreePress/Save the Internet think tank” and questioned why GOA would participate in a coalition that includes liberal groups such as the ACLU, MoveOn.Org, SEIU, CREDO and ACORN.

Why now?  GOA claims that the times have changed, and that the Net Neutrality movement has changed over the last four years:

“Back in 2006 we supported net neutrality, as we had been concerned that AOL and others might continue to block pro-second amendment issues,” said Erich Pratt, communications director for GOA.

“The issue has now become one of government control of the Internet, and we are 100 percent opposed to that,” Pratt said.

Er, what?  The Net Neutrality movement has never been a grassroots effort aimed solely at private enterprise.  It has always aimed at government intervention and regulation of Internet access and network management. That was as true in 2006 as it is today.

Arguably, the issue is free speech, but the problem with that is that NN advocates want government-imposed neutrality on content delivery, which makes sense for a monopoly — but the Internet isn’t a monopoly.  (STI still has Parents Television Council and the Christian Coalition inside the tent, at least for now, two groups not known for their opposition to government intervention in speech.)  The NN argument treats the Internet as a public utility, an argument that FCC chair Julius Genachowski explicitly made this year, but it’s not, and it’s not even close.  Consumers can choose between several different providers, and content handling certainly can inform those choices.

Clearly, GOA’s participation in the Save the Internet coalition depended mainly on whether their ox would get gored or not.  With the Heller and McDonald decisions, perhaps GOA feels more sanguine about their future than they did in 2006.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

As my mother always said, you are judged by the company you keep.

Cindy Munford on August 23, 2010 at 2:22 PM

Not the first time they’ve been on the wrong side of an issue.

Someone must have told Larry that there was money in it.

CrazyGene on August 23, 2010 at 2:22 PM

So wait…people who value gun rights didn’t want to be associated with a group that thinks speedy internet access is a right?

Shocka.

MadisonConservative on August 23, 2010 at 2:25 PM

See, this is why the right really sucks on so many current trends. Yeah, that internet powerhouse AOL, is what really determines the direction of the Internet. Really gramps? AOL? How could an organization allow itself to be so wrong on an issue?

ClassicCon on August 23, 2010 at 2:27 PM

So wait…people who value gun rights didn’t want to be associated with a group that thinks speedy internet access is a right?

Shocka.

MadisonConservative on August 23, 2010 at 2:25 PM

Yet they initially supported it.

The issue is why would you ever trust a group of individuals that were in support of it in the first place, when it is obvious they have no clue either way. They probably believe net neutrality refers to American shrimping industry or something similar.

ClassicCon on August 23, 2010 at 2:29 PM

See, this is why the right really sucks on so many current trends. Yeah, that internet powerhouse AOL, is what really determines the direction of the Internet. Really gramps? AOL? How could an organization allow itself to be so wrong on an issue?

ClassicCon on August 23, 2010 at 2:27 PM

You beat me to it. AOL hasn’t been relevant to the internet in 10 years.

MobileVideoEngineer on August 23, 2010 at 2:33 PM

Well, at least they ain’t backing Harry Reid.

abobo on August 23, 2010 at 2:33 PM

The issue is why would you ever trust a group of individuals that were in support of it in the first place, when it is obvious they have no clue either way. They probably believe net neutrality refers to American shrimping industry or something similar.

ClassicCon on August 23, 2010 at 2:29 PM

As someone’s who’s been following the issue for quite a while, I’ve come to understand that the number of people who actually even understand what “net neutrality” means is quite low, and it’s not likely to get much higher until the internet becomes a declared public utility, which I really hope it doesn’t.

MadisonConservative on August 23, 2010 at 2:35 PM

As someone’s who’s been following the issue for quite a while, I’ve come to understand that the number of people who actually even understand what “net neutrality” means is quite low, and it’s not likely to get much higher until the internet becomes a declared public utility, which I really hope it doesn’t.

MadisonConservative on August 23, 2010 at 2:35 PM

If/when that happens, we all will be hating the government big time.

Johnnyreb on August 23, 2010 at 2:38 PM

It’s about time they came to their senses. I wrote a letter to them months ago asking them to clarify their position on NN, and I never heard back.

I have allowed my NRA membership to lapse because of their support for Harry Reid. I’d hate to have to do it again with GOA over this issue. I’ll just have to keep an eye on them.

UltimateBob on August 23, 2010 at 2:41 PM

MadisonConservative on August 23, 2010 at 2:35 PM

You are correct. There is a lot of misinformation out there around NN. And all those misinformed people are the whole reason this legislation has any support at all.

UltimateBob on August 23, 2010 at 2:43 PM

So when will Glenn Reynolds (#5 on the charter member list) leave this movement?

SaintGeorgeGentile on August 23, 2010 at 2:43 PM

To say NN has not changed since 2006 is wrong, and to say the Internet is not a Monopoly is a half truth.

The internet, due to its high capital costs, there are very few options in anything other than large metro areas, my parents have ZERO broadband access (not even wireless) other than $$$$ sat uplinks or a $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ direct fiber installation. Even me, living near downtown of the 17th largest city in the nation have every few options, Comcast and ATT (cell phone data plans are good for phones only, 2GB limits eliminate them as a option for home us IMO) both have long track records of packet shaping by protocol.

I dont have the answer, because I do not like the idea of the government getting involved, but at the same time I do not want Comcast to be able to use packet analysis and QoS to hamper say prevent me from using anyone but comcast for my VoIP. or limit my netflix connection because they want me to use onDemand, etc etc etc.

Comcast has already been proven to do this with bit torrent which is used by thousands for legal file transfers (anyone that uses linux knows this) and it will not stop with just the file sharing.

the_ancient on August 23, 2010 at 2:44 PM

Comcast has already been proven to do this with bit torrent which is used by thousands for legal file transfers (anyone that uses linux knows this) and it will not stop with just the file sharing.

the_ancient on August 23, 2010 at 2:44 PM

bit torrent uses 50% of total internet capacity for linux distros.

Do you really think we are that stupid?

pedestrian on August 23, 2010 at 2:49 PM

“A bipartisan coalition in favor of net neutrality has lost a key conservative supporter…”

Come again…? Excuse me…?

“… the group had strong ties to MoveOn, SEIU, and ACORN”

… sounds pretty conservative to me.

/

Seven Percent Solution on August 23, 2010 at 2:54 PM

Comcast and ATT (cell phone data plans are good for phones only, 2GB limits eliminate them as a option for home us IMO) both have long track records of packet shaping by protocol.

I dont have the answer, because I do not like the idea of the government getting involved, but at the same time I do not want Comcast to be able to use packet analysis and QoS to hamper say prevent me from using anyone but comcast for my VoIP. or limit my netflix connection because they want me to use onDemand, etc etc etc.

Comcast has already been proven to do this with bit torrent which is used by thousands for legal file transfers (anyone that uses linux knows this) and it will not stop with just the file sharing.

the_ancient on August 23, 2010 at 2:44 PM

That’s the issue with that area and those companies then. If the satellite companies really wanted to compete, they would lower their prices. That’s the issue at hand. Even with TV you only have 4 options normally. Most places in the country have 3 options for high speed internet (and many more if you include dial-up).

Having the government regulate/take it over is not the answer.

MobileVideoEngineer on August 23, 2010 at 2:55 PM

It is a bit hard to understand why the gun group joined in the first place. The ties to MoveOn, et al was pretty clear from the beginning.

Warner Todd Huston on August 23, 2010 at 2:57 PM

Consumers can choose between several different providers

Not all consumers.

ernesto on August 23, 2010 at 2:58 PM

my sources have told me that GOA originally signed on because they had memos from the NRA about paying providers to redirect any pro-gun searches and traffic to the NRA website.

of course, the memos were fakes provided by the NN people. they knew they HAD TO bring on right wing groups and put them front and center, or anyone would be able to look at the supporters list and see exactly what they were.

GOA (and other right wing groups)were lied to and brought on board just to muddy the waters. odds are they were not even completely in the loop about the goings-on anyways.

warhorse_03826 on August 23, 2010 at 3:31 PM

To point out the obvious, the Internet is worse than a monopoly. Look at its structure, Ed — a network of peering relationships, some of which are notably one-sided (a peer who has only one path [via another peer] into the network is locked into a relationship with a monopoly). What kicked the net-neutrality issue into high gear was proposals by various vendors to meter network access based on content, and not on volume. The basic idea behind net neutrality is this: if any customer subscribes for a given level of access in terms of bytes transferred per unit of time, his vendor cannot deny that level of access based on the content of those bytes. In other words, it’s nothing more than truth in advertising, both for every endpoint and for every peer in an internet relationship.

What some providers want to do now is to limit access by application type or originator of data. Why would they do this? To obtain more revenue, of course — but their targets aren’t you or me, but content providers. They can’t target you or me because we are already paying for the right to access the network and pull X number of bytes per time unit over said network, and we individuals all vote. So they try a second order attack — upon Google, who doesn’t vote (they have lobbyists, but they don’t vote).

Wording it slightly differently, they are already getting money from you to pull content from Google, but what they desire is to get a double-income from every byte, by charging Google a fee for the bytes from Google’s site when they transit their network to your webserver. Never mind that they have profitable peering arrangements with every subnet around them, or that they have a profitable peering arrangement with YOU, and an already profitable peering relationship with Google or peers providing Google content, there’s more money to be mined…. So how they do it is to slow down delivery of Google content until Google digs into its deep pockets to pay the toll.

In terms of HotAir, it would be like HotAir having to pay a peering fee with every internet service provider (ISP) on the Internet who routes any bytes between their servers and their consumers (rather than just their own ISP, who is responsible under the original [Government defined] Internet rules for negotiating peering arrangements with any other peers to which they directly connect). Given the redundant nature of routes over the internet, that might be two or three peer graphs per customer. Paying the ransom would be the only way that HotAir could guarantee that its bytes of content are freely delivered to its customers. If HotAir and DailyKos are in a competitive relationship (heh), and one fails to pay the fee…

A somewhat instructive simile is the badly misnamed LePetomane Freeway:

[Lamarr's posse rides up on Bart's diversion: a single tollbooth in the middle of the desert]
Taggart: “LePetomaine Freeway”? Aw, what’ll that asshole think of next?
[turns to the posse]
Taggart: Has anybody got a dime?
[henchmen grumble, search their pockets]
Taggart: Somebody’s gotta go back and get a shitload of dimes!

The question HotAir users ought to be asking is: Are you prepared to pay separate monthly fees to your provider for “channels” — access to Google and HotAir and DrudgeReport and…

unclesmrgol on August 23, 2010 at 3:33 PM

Not all consumers.

ernesto on August 23, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Ern, I live in a state with less than 770,000 people in toto. I have a choice of two local providers in addition to Qwest, which is available practically nationwide (anyplace you can get their phone service, anyhow). If *I* have choices, I’d like to know who doesn’t.

gryphon202 on August 23, 2010 at 3:39 PM

Not all consumers.

ernesto on August 23, 2010 at 2:58 PM

All consumers have choices. They might not like the choices available, but there is ‘choice’ nonetheless.

Monica on August 23, 2010 at 3:43 PM

bit torrent uses 50% of total internet capacity for linux distros.

Do you really think we are that stupid?

pedestrian on August 23, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Your point is exactly why an ISP shouldn’t rely upon protocol analysis to determine legality or illegality of content, or whether it ought to dump said byte in the big bitbucket or sent it onward to its users. ISPs already charge end users X dollars for Y number of bytes per time unit — in other words, you are paying for a set amount of network capacity, as is every other peer in the Internet relationship. If they want to instutute a tiered charge (your first N bytes are covered, but every M bytes thereafter incur an extra charge), net neutrality would let them, both for you and for their other peers. But they cannot charge more based on where you asked for the bytes to come from or go to, and they cannot slow down any bytes based on where the bytes come from or go to, and they cannot self-censor bytes based on where they come from or go to.

unclesmrgol on August 23, 2010 at 3:45 PM

Ern, I live in a state with less than 770,000 people in toto. I have a choice of two local providers in addition to Qwest, which is available practically nationwide (anyplace you can get their phone service, anyhow). If *I* have choices, I’d like to know who doesn’t.

gryphon202 on August 23, 2010 at 3:39 PM

I live in a metropolitan area of around half a million. I can choose from one internet provider. One.

All consumers have choices. They might not like the choices available, but there is ‘choice’ nonetheless.

Monica on August 23, 2010 at 3:43 PM

In some cases, only if you’re talking about a choice between internet from the single provider in the area, or no internet.

MadisonConservative on August 23, 2010 at 3:47 PM

Pssst…everyone…the internet is still a luxury even though thousands of masturbating teens will scream otherwise. Anytime a child wants something for free they will come up with all sorts of reasons to justify it…hence NN.

Bottom line.

Oh and “the_ancient” please stop with that torrent/linux claim. It is a joke. True the technology CAN be used for legal file sharing, but the majority is for stealing sheet. Be honest.

ClassicCon on August 23, 2010 at 3:49 PM

Not all consumers.

ernesto on August 23, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Case in point…access to your toy is not a right.

ClassicCon on August 23, 2010 at 3:50 PM

I live in a metropolitan area of around half a million. I can choose from one internet provider. One.

MadisonConservative on August 23, 2010 at 3:47 PM

Geez..you know how much junk I get in my snail mail advertising deals if I switch providers? Need a roomie, Madison?

/kidding

gryphon202 on August 23, 2010 at 3:58 PM

Psssst. The plural of “ox” is “oxen,” not “oxes.”

goddessoftheclassroom on August 23, 2010 at 4:01 PM

Better late than never, I suppose. But they are so late it’s troubling.

petefrt on August 23, 2010 at 4:05 PM

In some cases, only if you’re talking about a choice between internet from the single provider in the area, or no internet.

MadisonConservative on August 23, 2010 at 3:47 PM

You only have access to one provider or one CABLE provider? Dial up and satellite are available everywhere, even rural areas as are wireless cards through cell phone companies.

So if you don’t like your choices, we should nationalize and subsidize the intertubes so you can have a few extra choices that you may or may not like and all pay more for your convenience?

Monica on August 23, 2010 at 4:13 PM

You only have access to one provider or one CABLE provider? Dial up and satellite are available everywhere, even rural areas as are wireless cards through cell phone companies.

So if you don’t like your choices, we should nationalize and subsidize the intertubes so you can have a few extra choices that you may or may not like and all pay more for your convenience?

Monica on August 23, 2010 at 4:13 PM

That’s why I said most areas of the country have 3 options for internet which is only one less than the 4 options for TV.

MobileVideoEngineer on August 23, 2010 at 4:17 PM

See what happens when people don’t pay attention? This is why the treacherous left has been co-opting the English language.

As Rush Limbaugh says, liberals cannot afford to have people understand who they really are and what their true goals are. They have to lie to get votes.

Lucky GOA to have a conservative blogger point out the obvious.

disa on August 23, 2010 at 4:26 PM

That’s why I said most areas of the country have 3 options for internet which is only one less than the 4 options for TV.

MobileVideoEngineer on August 23, 2010 at 4:17 PM

How many options does one need to have available for it to be considered ‘choices’?

Monica on August 23, 2010 at 4:29 PM

You only have access to one provider or one CABLE provider? Dial up and satellite are available everywhere, even rural areas as are wireless cards through cell phone companies.

Except that dial-up is technologically insufficient for even average internet use in the modern era. What you’re arguing is that a bicycle could be used to get to work, 30 miles away, in rain or snow. Possible? Yes. Impractical? Also yes.

Satellite, on the other hand, is sufficiently fast, but unreliable and expensive. Posing those as practical choices is a stretch.

So if you don’t like your choices, we should nationalize and subsidize the intertubes so you can have a few extra choices that you may or may not like and all pay more for your convenience?

Monica on August 23, 2010 at 4:13 PM

1. That’s not even the goal of net neutrality.
2. I’m not making that argument, and I’ve in fact written against that argument. Try again.

MadisonConservative on August 23, 2010 at 4:33 PM

Except that dial-up is technologically insufficient for even average internet use in the modern era. What you’re arguing is that a bicycle could be used to get to work, 30 miles away, in rain or snow. Possible? Yes. Impractical? Also yes.

What didn’t you understand about the idea of wireless data cards?

Satellite, on the other hand, is sufficiently fast, but unreliable and expensive. Posing those as practical choices is a stretch.

Like I said earlier, that is the problem of the satellite companies. If they truly wanted to compete, they would lower their pricing structure.

1. That’s not even the goal of net neutrality.
2. I’m not making that argument, and I’ve in fact written against that argument. Try again.

MadisonConservative on August 23, 2010 at 4:33 PM

That may not have been the stated goal, but that is the goal.

MobileVideoEngineer on August 23, 2010 at 4:45 PM

1. That’s not even the goal of net neutrality.

It is one of the ways they’re selling it though.

2. I’m not making that argument, and I’ve in fact written against that argument. Try again.

MadisonConservative on August 23, 2010 at 4:33 PM

Reading backward up the thread, I see your other comment that you don’t want it as a public utility. So what do you want? You don’t like your options because they’re not cutting edge enough or too cutting edge and expensive. But still, you have multiple choices- you just don’t like them. So what is your desired solution?

Monica on August 23, 2010 at 4:46 PM

Reading backward up the thread, I see your other comment that you don’t want it as a public utility. So what do you want? You don’t like your options because they’re not cutting edge enough or too cutting edge and expensive. But still, you have multiple choices- you just don’t like them. So what is your desired solution?

Monica on August 23, 2010 at 4:46 PM

It’s not a matter of dial-up not being cutting-edge. Your basic website has such a cocktail of content in bandwidth-hungry formats that it renders dial-up impractical. Very few sites actually even attempt to make slimmed-down versions for people with slow internet.

Satellite is also not cutting edge. The speeds they offer are comparable to low-end bandwidth, they have the same connection issues as satellite television, the ping times are abhorrent, and are priced at ridiculous premiums. Hence, impractical.

It’s not a matter of dislike. It’s lack of sufficient resources to be of practical use. Again, it’s like suggesting that someone can drive, walk, or bike to work 30 miles away. It’s impractical.

I’m not presenting any solutions. I’m just saying that the assertion that people have a choice between several different providers is wrong, or at best, severely flawed.

MadisonConservative on August 23, 2010 at 4:56 PM

What didn’t you understand about the idea of wireless data cards?

MobileVideoEngineer on August 23, 2010 at 4:45 PM

If they’re available, and if you’re going to be using it in an area with coverage.

MadisonConservative on August 23, 2010 at 4:57 PM

GOA has always been run by people who didn’t do due diligence. They lost my support when they through in with the web fascists, and reversing themselves by releasing a statement that indicates they didn’t even know what they were supporting won’t make me go back.

NRA all the way.

Rob Taylor on August 23, 2010 at 4:59 PM

I remember several years ago AOL was “losing” e-mails from gun rights groups and unjustly fired some employees that were gun owners. It sounds like GOA got involved with NN for the wrong reasons and wasn’t paying attention.

Highwayman on August 23, 2010 at 5:00 PM

I’m not presenting any solutions. I’m just saying that the assertion that people have a choice between several different providers is wrong, or at best, severely flawed.

MadisonConservative on August 23, 2010 at 4:56 PM

Again you seem to completely leave out wireless data cards.

And you seem to be too attached to your little biking to work 30 miles comparison. Well it doesn’t fly. If a person doesn’t have a car and can’t afford a car, then they have to find another way to get to work, they don’t have a right to a car.

The point is that high speed internet is not a right either. If you can’t afford it, then you don’t need it, or you’ll have to find another way to get online.

MobileVideoEngineer on August 23, 2010 at 5:03 PM

Most of the time people argue about net neutrality they don’t even agree on what the term means.

There’s a real concern that when someone who’s providing bandwidth is also providing content, they may try to restrict you to use their content, or prioritize their content at the expense of what you really want. Comcast is a great example. They are an internet provider, charging based on speed rather than amount downloaded. They also recently took over NBC. Obviously, for those who want to watch TV shows over the internet, they would have some incentive to make NBC shows available easier, while making CBS or Fox shows slower to download and turning a simple thing like watching a CBS show over your high-speed internet connection into a totally unpleasant experience.

I’m not saying they are doing this, just using them as an example.

I think Net Neutrality is important as a principle, but, as in so many things, I don’t think it will work as government control. For one thing, there are legitimate reasons to prioritize an ISP’s own traffic above that of others, such as VOIP, which can be very sensitive to network delays.

The best fix would be to inject more competition in the ISP marketplace. Where I live, we’re probably seeing more benefit from cable companies competing with phone companies offering DSL than from any government rules.

tom on August 23, 2010 at 5:05 PM

I’m not presenting any solutions. I’m just saying that the assertion that people have a choice between several different providers is wrong, or at best, severely flawed.

MadisonConservative on August 23, 2010 at 4:56 PM

We’re going in circles. You have choices. You don’t like any of your choices for various reasons, therefore you don’t consider them actual choices. Then you decry your lack of choices. I give up.

Monica on August 23, 2010 at 5:13 PM

It’s not a matter of dial-up not being cutting-edge. Your basic website has such a cocktail of content in bandwidth-hungry formats that it renders dial-up impractical. Very few sites actually even attempt to make slimmed-down versions for people with slow internet.

MadisonConservative on August 23, 2010 at 4:56 PM

Suggesting dial-up as a practical alternative for internet access is equivalent to worrying about AOL taking over the internet: obsolete.

It’s one thing to use dial-up if your only use of the internet is as a consumer, maybe to read or comment on blogs. Even there, you’d better stick to blogs that don’t have video.

But if you’re having to use the internet for work functions, as in accessing the computer system for your place of business, dial-up is very limited.

Satellite looks good as far as raw speed, but the latency in sending and getting a response will kill you slooooooowly.

Wireless may ultimately be the answer, but it’s not there yet for most of us.

tom on August 23, 2010 at 5:14 PM

And you seem to be too attached to your little biking to work 30 miles comparison. Well it doesn’t fly. If a person doesn’t have a car and can’t afford a car, then they have to find another way to get to work, they don’t have a right to a car.

The point is that high speed internet is not a right either. If you can’t afford it, then you don’t need it, or you’ll have to find another way to get online.

MobileVideoEngineer on August 23, 2010 at 5:03 PM

You know what would be really nice? If you quoted anywhere where I stated that internet was a right, rather than endlessly and dishonestly putting that assertion in my mouth. I’m merely arguing that notion that citizens can choose from several providers. Stop trying to strawman me.

MadisonConservative on August 23, 2010 at 5:24 PM

We’re going in circles. You have choices. You don’t like any of your choices for various reasons, therefore you don’t consider them actual choices. Then you decry your lack of choices. I give up.

Monica on August 23, 2010 at 5:13 PM

Because for all intents and purposes, impractical choices are not sufficient to support the assertion that everyone “can choose from several providers”. Good grief, you and MVE sure are getting sore about that.

MadisonConservative on August 23, 2010 at 5:25 PM

GEEZ, GOA with Net Neutrality and NRA with Reid and DISCLOSE, what is a gun owner to do!

I guess Net Neutrality isn’t as bad as who the NRA has been making deals with lately. I mean it’s terrible, but it sounds like they are just your typical partisans, support it when a Republican is Presdient, against it when a Progressive is in office.

We need less short sighted 2nd amendment groups.

Daemonocracy on August 23, 2010 at 5:30 PM

Good grief, you and MVE sure are getting sore about that.

MadisonConservative on August 23, 2010 at 5:25 PM

We’re not the ones complaining about lack of internet choices as we’re posting up a storm.

Monica on August 23, 2010 at 5:51 PM

We’re not the ones complaining about lack of internet choices as we’re posting up a storm.

Monica on August 23, 2010 at 5:51 PM

Nor was I. Someone else did, you said it wasn’t true, I countered, and you responded by putting net neutrality arguments in my mouth. That’s kind of annoying considering a few things.

You, so far, are the one complaining about perceived complaining on the parts of others. Reasoned disagreement with a flawed statement isn’t a complaint.

MadisonConservative on August 23, 2010 at 5:58 PM

In other words, it’s nothing more than truth in advertising, both for every endpoint and for every peer in an internet relationship.

unclesmrgol on August 23, 2010 at 3:33 PM

If it is nothing more than truth in advertising, then there is no need to discuss it further, because we already have that.

What it really is is using some made up scare stories about people blocking your favorite website unless you pay a “modem tax.” And you also have to warn ten of your friends about the danger or something really bad will happen to you. The left has discovered what they hope is a seemingly harmless way for the government to get its foot into the role of deciding what services are provided to whom and for how much. Seems like a waste of one’s life to pursue that goal, but for a stinky, lefty hippy it is as compelling as sex.

pedestrian on August 23, 2010 at 6:34 PM

Nor was I. Someone else did, you said it wasn’t true, I countered, and you responded by putting net neutrality arguments in my mouth. That’s kind of annoying considering a few things.

You, so far, are the one complaining about perceived complaining on the parts of others. Reasoned disagreement with a flawed statement isn’t a complaint.

MadisonConservative on August 23, 2010 at 5:58 PM

Your words.,,

I live in a metropolitan area of around half a million. I can choose from one internet provider. One.

MadisonConservative on August 23, 2010 at 3:47 PM

Monica on August 23, 2010 at 6:55 PM

If it is nothing more than truth in advertising, then there is no need to discuss it further, because we already have that.

What it really is is using some made up scare stories about people blocking your favorite website unless you pay a “modem tax.” And you also have to warn ten of your friends about the danger or something really bad will happen to you. The left has discovered what they hope is a seemingly harmless way for the government to get its foot into the role of deciding what services are provided to whom and for how much. Seems like a waste of one’s life to pursue that goal, but for a stinky, lefty hippy it is as compelling as sex.

pedestrian on August 23, 2010 at 6:34 PM

a) No we don’t yet have honesty. Ever measured the true throughput rate of your connection? Ever wonder what “up to” means should you complain to your provider that the 3Mb/s connection they provided you is only delivering 1.5Mb/s?

b) Calling people names while offering nothing to counter their arguments must endear you to them and win you lots of friends — NOT. I chose Google for a reason — their pact with Verizon shows exactly where Google, Verizon et al. are going, and what Google and Verizon thought was a good corporate stakeout position. You pretend by ignorance that every issue I’ve raised is a red herring. They are not. The Government doesn’t step in to regulate unless there are giants stepping on each others’ toes. And when giants step on other giants’ toes, a whole bunch of us wee people risk getting crushed too. Your enemy is not “net neutrality” — which is going to happen whether you want it or not — it’s whether or not “net neutrality” will have a definition which benefits you. The Internet is indeed a bunch of tubes, and those of us (everyone using this blog, and the blog itself) at the ends of tubes have an interest in assuring that we pay a fair price for the biggest and best connected tubes in the world.

unclesmrgol on August 23, 2010 at 6:56 PM

Monica on August 23, 2010 at 6:55 PM

Stating a fact, not making a complaint.

MadisonConservative on August 23, 2010 at 7:06 PM

Ever wonder what “up to” means should you complain to your provider that the 3Mb/s connection they provided you is only delivering 1.5Mb/s?

unclesmrgol on August 23, 2010 at 6:56 PM

Everyone knows what “up to” means.

The fact is that if you want a lot of choices, you move to a big city. That’s why they make them. If you prefer to live in a less dense area, that’s fine, but you aren’t going to have as much choice in restaurants, sporting events, or wait for it, ISPs. I no more want the government to dictate what the menu prices are because people in small towns are tired of their local eatery than I want them to restrict the options I have in what features I contract with my ISP to provide. And if an ISP wants to compete in the marketplace by charging a higher price to anyone who wants access hotair.com, I say let them try, but they will fail.

In any case, Apple makes a huge deal about restricting what can run on the machines you buy from them, and yet people still complain instead about Google and especially Microsoft.

pedestrian on August 23, 2010 at 7:40 PM

In any case, Apple makes a huge deal about restricting what can run on the machines you buy from them, and yet people still complain instead about Google and especially Microsoft.

pedestrian on August 23, 2010 at 7:40 PM

Hmm. I run Linux. No complaints at all. Not even about bittorrent, since I have SOHO class service (up to 7Mb/s, but really 3Mb/s).

And as far as “up to” — well, one would think that “up to” means that I might get 7Mb/s, since I am exactly 2047 feet away from the CO, but I don’t — not even close. And when I had 3Mb/s service on exactly the same line, I got 1.5mb/s. So tell me the meaning of “up to”. I do not think those words mean what everyone thinks they mean.

unclesmrgol on August 23, 2010 at 10:14 PM

I can not believe people are actaully tring to make the case that Dialup, Satellite and Wireless are in anyway shape shape or form competition with DSL, Cable and Fiber???

Either these people know nothing about the technology which means they can not form a educated opinion on this topic, or they are being disingenuous.

We are actaully go back to the Ma Bell days. I am sure everyone here loved RENTING their telephones from the phone company because only authorized telephone could be used on the phone network.

That was really consumer friendly and we would have all been better off if they were allowed to continue that as well…

the_ancient on August 23, 2010 at 10:27 PM