« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Tech at Night: Free Press, Google, Verizon, Net Neutrality, Democrats, Gun Owners of America

Tech at Night

Good evening. Yes, indeed, the right is waking up to the dangers of over-regulation of the Internet. Right here at RedState the pressure is on the Gun Owners of America as diarist ladyimpactohio is asking them about their endorsement of the neo-Marxist front group Save the Internet, an endorsement of the radical group Free Press and its extremist co-founder Robert McChesney.

With activists like this, and sites like MediaFreedom.org, keeping watch online, we can only make more progress against the radicals.

Of course, there is now some disagreement going around on Net Neutrality. Of course, I think most of us would rather the government just let well enough alone, but if we’re going to have action taken, I’d much, much rather the Congress implement a version of the Google/Verizon proposal than the McChesney/Genachowski talk. Media Freedom and the Harvard Business Review are having none of that, though.

I can respect that. We need people to hold the hard line on this, if efforts to compromise are going to have any useful effect. So let’s play both ends.

The left certainly hasn’t given up. After the miserable failure of a protest at Google, now the radical members of Congress are demanding that the FCC ignore the common-sense Google/Verizon compromise and instead do the radical thing. Note that they’re all Democrats: Ed Markey, Anna Eshoo, Mike Doyle, and Jay Inslee. They’re now calling Google a “large communications company,” which make me laugh. The Net Neutrality radicals are so used to demonizing the telecoms, that they can’t attack Google without lumping them in with the rest. Theirs is not a sensible approach, but rather just knee-jerk Marxism.

Light regulation really works, though, when there is a community behind it, which there is online. One English community had great luck removing traffic lights from a busy and complicated intersection. Would it work everywhere? Probably not. It’d be less efficient in the cases of very simple intersections. But in a complicated system, centralized planning doesn’t always work because the unforeseen creeps up, but regulation is too confining to allow the public to adapt. We need to keep the Internet adaptable.

COMMENTS

  • ladyimpactohio

    he will have until 1pm EST to respond. My follow-up diary will then commence post haste soon after.

  • saintgeorgegentile

    Glenn Reynolds,

  • saintgeorgegentile

    Let’s add to the list of “What Were They Thinking”

  • wvmikep

    …in the fly-over regions of this country, outside the big cities, there is no competition in the broadband market. If that one choice I have starts rigging the system, then I as the consumer lose. The Google/Verizon deal was nothing more than an attempt to rig the wireless market in their favor and not for the benefit of the consumer. Again, move outside the cities, the amount of competition diminishes and in some areas like where I live, it disappears. Net neutrality is about preventing the likes of Comcast from putting artificial speed bumps in place between myself and the content/services I want to access. These online companies already pay for bandwidth they use at their internet connection. They shouldn’t have to pay twice at the consumer’s end where the cost is already covered by the consumer.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • wvmikep

    Care to refute any of it, including the zero to one choice offered to rural america?

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I spread truth.

  • hippiessmell

    If that one choice starts rigging the system.. If the likes of Comcast starts putting speed bumps in place. None of that happens now, which is why you’re reduced to hypotheticals. As it stands now, the zero to one choice argument is a straw man to distract from the fact that none of your doomsday scenarios are actually happening in the real world. Until they start actually happening, there is no reason to involve the government. Telecoms aren’t perfect, but they are subject to market pressure, which makes them infinitely better equipped to manage broadband services than the government, who are only subject to political pressure (read: omg lobbyists!) from companies seeking to buy profitability for their preferred business model (read: crony capitalism). Look at your new whipping boy Google, when it came down to it they chose the compromise that was better for their business model rather than what they thought was right, which was no compromise full-on net neutrality.

    For example, look at this. ISPs seem to be doing a pretty good job of it so far.

  • wvmikep

    There is no IF when it comes to the lack of competition in rural areas. Thus, there is NO market pressure.

    My choice is Comcast and Comcast.

    If we could get FiOS to compete with Comcast, then sure, market pressures could prevail. However, Verizon sold us off to Frontier. Thus, no broadband competition.

    It drives me nuts when my fellow conservatives fall into the same trap the liberals are themselves in, assuming what’s true or good in urban areas as applying to rural areas as well.

  • wvmikep

    I’m no socialist. I live in an area with only one broadband provider.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    You don’t know what on earth you’re talking about, and you’re idiotically shilling for a massive socialist takeover.

    Learn something before you post. Seriously. That is, unless you’re another moby, then just go away.