Who is so bought and paid for as to want net neutrality subverted? From the Washington Post of 17 Dec 2010:
Quote:
Sen. Hutchison moves to block funds for FCC on net neutrality rules
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), ranking member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee filed an amendment to an appropriations bill aimed at preventing the Federal Communications Commission from adopting net neutrality regulation.
Hutchison's amendment, co-signed by John Ensign (R-Nev.) and six other Republican lawmakers, would "prohibit the FCC from using any appropriated funds to adopt, implement or otherwise litigate any network neutrality based rules, protocols or standards." ...
The FCC's five commissioners are deliberating draft rules proposed by Chairman Julius Genachowski that would prevent Internet service providers from blocking access to Web sites or favoring the access to some content over others.
|
Companies such as Comcast would have to earn their profits by innovating rather than by subverting other services to extract more money.
These same extremists changed the rule so that all internet providers, but two, were driven from the market. These extremist said two big companies was better than many innovative internet providers. Since then, broadband in America has been quickly decreasing compared to all other OECD nations. Decreasing in average bandwidth. And decreasing in broadband availability. Subverting principles of the 1996 Federal Communication laws that essentially said, "either you provide broadband or anyone else can provide it on your lines".
How dare government require companies to innovate. Extremists said a duopoly is better. These same extremists say Comcast subverting Skype data packets is both good and desirable. That surcharging Netflix is good so that consumers instead will buy same and more expensive services from Comcast.
Remember when cable TV was $8 per month? Why are consumers now paying more than $100 per month? Free markets and competition?
FCC should no longer stop corrupt actions. Comcast should have the right to buy any software they want to corrupt Skype packets. And should have the right to lie about doing same. That means more campaign contributions from companies such as Comcast. The political agenda is far more important than the consumer.
What might we expect next from these same politicians? Hate of Muslims? Hate of gays? Do anything to make Obama fail? The internet should be a profit center only for the highest paid executives. Executives who can now contribute all they want to buy their favorite politicians. Screw net neutrality when a political agenda is far more important.
It started when the 1996 Federal Communication Act was subverted in the early 2000. Changed to drive out free markets and competition. What happened to companies such as Covad or PSINet? Apparently the only free market that should remain free is the one that buys politicians.