The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Nap-Time Tales of Net Neutrality

Posted on | September 28, 2010 | 12 Comments

I am on record as declaring “Net Neutrality” as The Most Boring Policy Debate in History. However, it appears that Warner Todd Huston was able to score a large enough supply of pure methamphetamine to keep him awake while he sorted through all the recent Net Neutrality news, including this scary headline:

Draft of Waxman’s net-neutrality
legislation leaked amid talks

Oh, great. So now the intense soporific effect caused by having to think about Net Neutrality — it’s a struggle not to nod off before I finish typing this sentence — is combined with the horrific mental image of Henry Waxman.

NIGHTMARES of NOSTRILDAMUS!

Better grab some some more coffee . . .

CHUCK WILKERSON for U.S. CONGRESS

Category: Blogging, California, Congress, Election

Comments

12 Responses to “Nap-Time Tales of Net Neutrality”

  1. AllenG
    September 28th, 2010 @ 2:46 pm

    Net Neutrality isn’t (or shouldn’t be) boring. It’s a classic fight between capitalism and statism (to steal from Mark Levin).

    Basically, the proponents of so-called Net Neutrality are people who believe that they have a right to something produced by others, and that those “others” shouldn’t get to set the terms for people to use their products.

  2. Jeff Weimer
    September 28th, 2010 @ 2:51 pm

    I know this subject is boring, but just take a look at another internet bill that’s in committee right now:

    http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2010/09/group-voices-concerns-with-lea.php

    So, it seems that the Democrats and progressives have a problem with businesses making any attempt whatsoever at limiting to any degree user’s access to web sites, but they want to completely BAN websites the government finds objectionable – starting with websites that pirate software, movies, music, and such as a sweetner. But how many steps beyond that, once the legal framework is established, for the government to decide to ban websites it finds objectionable on other grounds, like opposition to government policies?

    Or not even that ominous. What if theothermccain.com got put on there for no good reason at all, as a mistake? How long would it take to appeal, have the domain removed, and finally get the DNS sorted out? Sure, you could move to another domain, but how much of a hit did you take when you did it earlier this year until everyone got used to the new one?

    Stuff like this means MONEY to you, I know.

  3. Warner Todd Huston
    September 28th, 2010 @ 3:22 pm

    You think YOU fell asleep. I had to WRITE it!! LOL. Seriously, though, while it all is totally wonkish, it is an important debate that conservatives have let the left gain a march on. The left has been pushing this Marxist new neutrality business for nearly 10 years!

  4. Republicans who support net ne… | america1first.com
    September 28th, 2010 @ 5:18 pm

    […] Nap-Time Tales of Net Neutrality : The Other McCain […]

  5. Danby
    September 28th, 2010 @ 5:23 pm

    Net neutrality is not boring. It’s as interesting as getting a bill from every ISP in the country in order to put you blog on the internet.

    AllenG,
    You are entirely wrong. It’s not a case of statism vs capitalism, it’s a case of monopoly rents vs free markets. It’s whether Verizon is entitled to a slice of Stacy’s tiny web income because…, well, just because.

    Keep in mind that internet infrastructure is paid for by end users. Your subscription fees pay for all of the infrastructure. Net neutrality has been the rule for carriers until now. Net neutrality means that the carriers don’t get to discriminate against certain services, like Google, yahoo, or TheOtherMcCain.com.

    The carriers want this rule overturned because the want to collect what are essentially monopoly rents. They want a license to extort money out of content providers. That would be in addition to the money they already extract from end users.For this additional money they would provide… exactly nothing, except the promise NOT to block or slow traffic that they already carry profitably.

    Net neutrality ensures a free market. That’s the last thing ATT, Verizon, ComCast, Qwest and all the other carriers want.

  6. Jeff Weimer
    September 28th, 2010 @ 6:34 pm

    Monoply rents? How does your 4+ providers in any way constitute a monopoly? If they collude to force these heretofore unknown and imaginary fees, they would be subject to prosecution under the Sherman anti-trust act.

    This whole “net neutrality” thing is a solution designed to solve a non-existent problem. Meanwhile, the government is seeking the ability to do the very same thing you’re worried the companies might do. That’s called, properly, censorship.

  7. As If We Don't Have Enough to Worry About - Net Neutrality | The Lonely Conservative
    September 29th, 2010 @ 1:09 am

    […] grief. The world is going insane. As Stacy McCain so eloquently pointed out, net neutrality is really boring. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be concerned. […]