Wading into another fierce ideological battle, Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II has announced plans to sue regarding new federal regulation of the Internet and has urged other states to jump on board his fight against “net neutrality.”
Calling the regulations the “most egregious of all violations of federal law,” Mr. Cuccinelli told The Washington Times on Thursday that he will begin in July or August to gather support from other attorneys general and private partners for a lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission.
“They have no respect for the courts, no respect for the states, no respect for the Constitution, no respect for federal law,” Mr. Cuccinelli, a Republican, said during an appearance on Capitol Hill at a lunch meeting of the National Italian-American Foundation.
Mr. Cuccinelli has engaged the federal government in legal battles related to other hot-button political issues, including health care and climate change. The net neutrality issue has become a cause celebre for Republicans who fear the Obama administration is attempting to control the Internet.
7 comments:
Yes, because we are not paying enough for internet services. Can someone explain to me why the Right is so against Net Neutrality?
I know the answer will be along the lines of "government interference in commerce" and "governmental over-reach," but these are talking point disguising the meat of the issue.
Verizon, Comcast, et all are upset because they think they should be allowed to make even more money, without any restrictions at all. They want to charge teired pricing for internet access (similar to cable television "packages" where you get certain channels for a certain price point) which will limit consumer's access to the web.
The FCC is protecting consumers, and if you want to paint it as "punishing good American corporations," then you showing your colors.
The issue is about access to the internet. So far, anyone can access anything, regardless of income. To wrap it in the Flag, this is about freedom.
Why is this issue, like all others, a Left vs Right debate?
No, the FCC isn't protecting consumers; it is freezing the current current level of Internet service in place. If Internet providers are allowed freedom to innovate (which net neutrality rules severely restrict) then consumers will benefit. If the FCC enacts net neutrality rules, it essentially says that the system we have in place now must stay in place. As we saw with the wireless telecom boom in the 90's and last decade, when government relaxes restrictions and allows companies to innovate, consumers are the ultimate winners.
And, frankly, so what if these companies charge people tiered prices? Why should people who don't use the Internet much continue subsidizing those who use it a lot?
Net neutrality limits the ability of companies to tailor their services to meet consumers' desires. It imposes a one-size-fits-all system on telecom companies, something that is only superficially "pro-consumer." Consumers benefit from competition, not government enforcing its view of what a business world should look like.
this is what happens when you hire a nanny... take care of your own kids !!!
Net Neutrality stops corporations from charges us for services they then suspend. If Comcast cuts a deal with Hulu, they can legally block access to YouTube if they so choose. Under Net Neutrality, internet service providers are NOT allowed to restrict access to content based on their own business relationships.
Those of you against Net Neutrality are supporting a position that allows ISps to legally prevent you from using the service you purchased. Any other description of Net Neutrality is spin from corporate lapdogs looking to screw consumers, again.
Fruitland, let's say Comcast does this, how long would it take Comcast to lose every one of its customers? It's not the FCC that's preventing Comcast from doing this sort of blocking (since they've legally been able to do it for years now), it's the fact that they'd face a huge customer backlash if they did this.
I'm not sure what kinds of businesses you patronize, but any business owner will tell you the way to riches is providing goods and services to customers that these customers want. If your ISP is blocking access to stuff you want, that's about the least successful business model I can envision. It's not the government that forces businesses to deliver goods and services that consumers want; it's the dynamics of a free market that gives consumers what they want. Net neutrality would prevent businesses from tailoring their business delivery to meet the different needs of different consumers.
12:13 - Do you honestly think Comcast cares one bit about their customers? Really at all? Name one mego-corporation who cares one bit about consumers.
Furthermore, name one who cares about any consumers on the Eastern Shore.
Then, what do you say to the people who live in areas where their ISP choices are Comcast or nobody?
What if Comcast created a new blogging platform, and then made you pay extra to use or access Google Blogger?
Leave it alone and it will be fine.
Dan, no Comcast doesn't care about me. So what? It cares about my money. The only way it's going to get my money is by offering me a product or service that I want. That gives it an incentive to offer the best product or service possible or its competitors will get my money instead.
Let's say there are people who only have access to Comcast and it pulled the BS you say it will. Another company would have a huge incentive to build out its network to reach a potentially huge market.
And if Comcast (or Verizon, my ISP) did make me pay extra to use Blogger, then I'd switch to a different company. It's pretty simple -- companies are motivated by the desire to please customers. You don't stay in business long if you offer customers a product they don't want.
Post a Comment