MLM Directory

Conservatives: How do you reconcile your opinions on Net Neutrality and Open Source Software?

This is a follow-up to another question I asked earlier today: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AozHXNcqC.gL8k1IlxYVOtTsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20100322064535AAMMUtq I was pleasantly surprised (but slightly confused) to find that many conservatives like the competitive edge that the Open Source community brings to the software market. You guys aren't all that bad after all. :P But, every answer begets another question: If Conservatism likes Open Source, why then is it typically opposed to Network Neutrality? Allowing an ISP to block their competitor's web content would devastate the highly competitive environment of the Internet. Moreover, its hardly a stretch to imagine certain companies (Microsoft) bribing ISPs to block open source havens such a SourceForge and the various Linux distro homepages (Debian, Ubuntu, Slackware, et al). Please don't mistake this as a troll or trap. Net Neutrality, the Open Source community and a competitive, innovative Internet are very dear issues to me. I just want to understand how Conservatives expect there to be innovation and competition on the Internet if ISPs are made unofficial gate-keepers to the Internet and are allowed to block whatever content then don't want you to see. To everyone: Network Neutrality in no way allows the Government to "regulate the Internet." It merely gives the Government power to prevent an ISP from blocking or throttling access to legal, non-disruptive content. Demos: Its not that far-fetched. There are 3 major broadband providers in the US: Comcast, AT&T and Verizon (with Google possibly soon throwing its hat into the ring). All three of the big players have stated in no uncertain terms that they would tier service according to content and block certain competitor's content, if network neutrality were struck down. Moreover, the telecom industry has such high infrastructure overhead that it is fairly difficult for new firms to enter the market. While the demand for neutral access may be high, the supply would not necessarily follow. Unless, of course, Google does build its fiber networks (with an explicit company commitment to maintaining a neutral network, no less). In which case, we can kiss the big 3 goodbye. Jans, if I have generalized Conservatives, it is only because Conservative supporters of net neutrality have been conspicuously quiet in the public realm while their much louder Conservative Net Neutrality opponents seemingly dominate the Conservative side of the debate.

Public Comments

1. I am not opposed to neutrality of the internet and would support consumer driven approaches to ensuring it. I am against ALL governmental regulation of the internet, not wanting it to become as uninformative as CNN and Fox news. I am willing to wade through the dross to find the wheat.
2. because it is not about what is on the surface ... just like obamacare it seeks to control and give out special favor
3. Tools are tools no matter how they are percived and tools are made to be used.
4. Sorry fool I do not have an opinion on the subject. And thank you very much for not putting words in my mouth. Try this next time: How do you reconcile some conservatives opinions
5. You're assuming a hypothetical situation where all ISP's are banning their competitors content and that ISP's who don't ban content, don't exist. Realistically I don't see this happening because if it did, that would create a demand for an ISP that doesn't block content and someone would start one up. This would cost other ISP's their subscribers and ultimately hurt the bottom line. From a business standpoint it wouldn't make sense to block content. Only a government regulation entity could allow for the internet to become controlled like that.
6. First of all you must factor in that Freedomworks aka the Tea Party has twisted the Net Neutrality argument to make Net Neutrality sound like... You guessed it... A "government takeover of the internet". From Freedomworks web site: [The Issue: Communications & Tech] [Innovations in communications and technology have fueled the Information Age. New discoveries emerge daily, rendering yesterday's technologies obsolete. The pace of change is so rapid that high-tech companies can lose competitive edge if they are not first-to-market with their idea or concept. [The FreedomWorks Position] [Taxes and government regulation slow down the growth of technological innovation. Government lawsuits against high-tech developers hamper the pace of innovation while costing the taxpayer money. Outdated government regulations pigeonhole companies - especially telephone companies - and make it difficult for them to react in a dynamic marketplace.] Translation: Taxes have nothing to do with it but serve as a "hot button" to get Teabaggers fur up. The "regulations" are those that would preserve net neutrality by keeping the telecoms that control the internet backbone from restricting certain software if favor of that which they prefer i.e. have a financial stake in. Think ATT and IPhone. In arguments the Teabaggers have actually been led to believe that NET NEUTRALITY means KEEPING THE GOVERNMENT OFF OF THE TELECOMS BACKS. So many think they support net neutrality when in fact the support the exact opposite.
7. why do liberals always generalize??? that is annoying i am conservative and I support net neutrality
8. Me I've long been an open source proponent, contributer and user. Switched most of my home pcs to Linux back in the late 90s and except for music recording been all Linux since 2000. If the US Gov dumped propriatory software it'd save trillions and also be far more efficient and secure. One of my biggest solutions to allow us to drastically cut taxes is exactly that, to ban propriatory software except where there is a compelling need for it because of a very specialized app that has no open source equiv. I'm iffy about net nuetrality. I like the basic concept but the devil is in the details. The way it's planned to be implemented just makes my skin crawl. It shouts Gov intrusion and regulation. It also can be easily twisted to force "equal" bandwidth even when bandwidth isn't an issue. As such ISPs could be forced to throttle bandwidth on popular sites because some pet Leftist website isn't getting the hits they think is appropriate. I do strongly oppose the tiered structure and growing monopoly among ISPs. Sprint is the worst offender. It has repeatedly over the years throttled bandwidth from small ISPs to give bandwidth to bigger ISPs who paid to have higher access. This tends to really harm rural users who don't have the collective bargaining power of being with one of the biggie ISPs and dial up users who are often using local tiny ISPs. Sprint has also at times censored content which outraged me and for years I boycotted Sprint products over it. The potential is still there for ISPs and parts of the backbone to censor at will, filter and to actually play politics by throttling not just specific ISPs but specific destinations and or regions. So I'd like to see net nuetrality completely rewritten to stay in the spirit of the idea rather than the mess that was proposed as law recently.
9. Great Point! You got 'em! We'll see who the country agrees with in November!