RE: The War against the already Open Internet (Part 1)
"This is just a bizarre statement because it is a complete lie. The FCC has absolutely zero ability to censor content." <-- Except for the fact that's exactly what they do and HAVE (documented below) censored communications since they've been in existence.
They currently censor television and radio. It's not paranoid when you have evidence.
• https://www.mercatus.org/expert_commentary/net-neutrality-government-censorship
• The May West Incident which led to strict censorship
• http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/11/the-fccs-incomprehensible-ban-on-broadca
• https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/fcc-should-resist-calls-enhance-broadcast-censorship
The government can't regulate the internet if the law doesn't exist to do so. Net Neutrality is exactly the law which opens that box.
Here's one example of censorship you experience every single day of your life: Decency laws for public radio and television. Not paranoid. Just a fact.
btw... there's no need to call me paranoid and incorrectly call me a libertarian. Just because you disagree there's no need be so nasty about this topic.
And what's wrong with a fear of government censorship? You're obviously afraid of corporations but I'm not trying to shame you about it. Fear is healthy.
Corporations are not the ones to fear. It's the gigantic entity with the most amount of guns. Your fear is misplaced. You should be mad at the local governments taking away your choice and which punishes competition at home. Monopolies are surprisingly easy to destroy with simple competition.
"I assume you are willing to pick up the tab on the Netflix surcharge Comcast is likely to impose, so where should I send my bill when it comes?" <--- You should send the bill to your local government and demand they stop punishing competition. If you insist on sending me the bill, I'll be happy to send it to your local government. In fact, I'll even be happy to start a non-profit which takes ALL the bills from ALL the people in your town and I'll send it to your local government AND local media and send photos all over the internet so people can start doing the same thing.
Competition will solve this problem. Nothing else will.
You've got gumption Redeemer...I'll give you that. How are you not a Libertarian? I would have bet dollars to donuts you were a Libertarian. Regardless, your points on decency standards is an important point because there are some important social political factors that your apparent politics do not acknowledge. I really don't want to get into a discourse in political philosophy, but generally speaking societies are based on the concept of the social contract. We knwo what that is: give a little to get a little. Implicit in that contract is the role of the arbitrator, e.g. government. So besides being the arbitrator of the social contract, it is also the caretaker of the resources that benefit everyone. Without that caretaker we are faced witht tragedy of the commons and the disintegration of the social contract and a regression in chaos. The airwaves are one such resouce. In our great nation we have chosen to manage and govern through a democratic republic form of government. You apparently do not like our governemnt and country so I wonder why you choose to live in what you see as a despotic authoritarian government. What is your fear of our government based on? What country do you believe has a better, more free, and open governemnt and civil society?
To get back to the issue of decency standard, they are not censorship. Regulation of speech? Yes...but they are not censorship, which is the blocking and suppression of speech. So we have decency laws that place regulations on the manner of speech over the public airwaves that are governed on behalf of everyone and therefore require some compromises. So nudity and bad language (all constitutionaly protected speech) cannot be made over the airwaves. But the speech isn't suppresses or outlawed. There are adult clubs, comedy clubs, and then of course came cable. Those expressions or forms of speech are regulated on our public airways. No question. So is our ability to protest and rally. I believe that when it comes to time and place speech regulations should be elimminated. They are only in place to protect vested interests. I am firm believer that social and political protest should be absolutely as disruptive as they can be without resorting to violence. But the popint is that the idea or belief or political ideology being expressed is not censored.
I went through that recitation to point out that ultimately the government (ours at least) is responsive and accountable to its citizenry. Can it, and should it, be more responsive? Sure...but we also intentionally went with a republic to mitigate some of the excesses of true democracy. On the other hand, I would love to know the period of history where the people that controlled the capital were ever responsive to those without capital? I'm not a communist or socialist, and neither are most Democrats or Republicans. Most of us are happy with the push and pull of society and the roles of each sector. But based on our history, I am more fearful of the corporations than I am of our government.
But you have to stop talking about punishing competition. On this topic there is no competiton. And don't be so hard on your local governement. They are far more responsive to you than D.C. is.
"To get back to the issue of decency standard, they are not censorship. Regulation of speech? Yes...but they are not censorship, which is the blocking and suppression of speech." <--- It is censorship. If you violate these laws you get punished, backed by the force of government. In fact, if this isn't censorship... then I want to know what is. If you can be punished for saying something that doesn't violate the rights of others... that's the very definition of censorship.
"So we have decency laws that place regulations on the manner of speech over the public airwaves that are governed on behalf of everyone and therefore require some compromises." <--- What does "governed on behalf of everyone" mean exactly? I'm not governing it. You're not governing it. It's enforced by the government only. JUST the government. It's not on my behalf. No one every asked me to enforce this on my behalf. I'm pretty certain no one asked you. You see where I'm going with this. This is censorship under the threat of violence.
"I am more fearful of the corporations than I am of our government." <--- That's only because, respectfully, you're ignoring the fact that corporations have no real power. They suckle at the teat of government. They have to. Government gives them the power. And any entity that can "give" power is the real power.
"But you have to stop talking about punishing competition. On this topic there is no competiton." <--- You're ignoring the causes and effects here. Your local government punishes the competition by using regulation to prevent them from engaging in business and thus, there is no competition. The regulation IS the punishment that leads to lack of competition.
https://fee.org/articles/mad-about-net-neutrality-and-epipens-blame-regulations/
https://gizmodo.com/5830956/why-the-government-wont-protect-you-from-getting-screwed-by-your-cable-company