Thursday, November 13, 2014

Net Neutrality: Throttling Innovation For The Greater Good

With Executive Order Amnesty securely carved out of his tee off times, Dear Leader has also decided to do for the Internet, what he's Done for Healthcare and So much more of America, for The Greater Good, of course.

Olga Photoshopova 

How do you make something more free and accessible? Why, more government regulation, of course. When government says they will regulate something, it always ends up being more accessible to all, with more freedom resulting, not less.

Net neutrality is one way to accomplish mandatory fairness, but on the internet. This topic has been on the back burner for years, but now President Obama is resurrecting the issue to confuse and divide conservatives (which we fully support.)

It's not fair when someone has more money to contribute to anything in life. The rich should not use more than their fair share of anything, including the internet. The Progressive Dictionary defines the "Rich" as:

[rich] n. 1. Anyone with a job. 2. Anyone with enough disposable income to pay more for a premium good or service i.e., almost every American.

President Obama believes that websites with large budgets (obviously republican-owned) should not have more of an advantage over 
high-schooler blogs (obviously liberal-owned.) By giving the liberal high-schooler blog free advertising that the republican-owned mega-website pays for, just as many people will see the liberal blog and vote Democrat (or so the theory goes.)

We at the People's Cube would like to discuss one major roadblock on the way to net neutrality. In the past, when liberal and conservative entities have been on equal footing, the liberal one usually loses out. For example:

  1. When people have the choice of multiple news channels, they usually choose Fox News over CNN.
  2. When people had the choice to tune into liberal radio channel Air America, they chose instead to listen to Rush Limbaugh. Air America went bankrupt.
  3. When Colorado voters had the opportunity to vote Democrat with mail-in ballots, they chose to vote republican.

While the purpose behind net neutrality is integral to the progressive movement (control and redistribution of internet), it may backfire on the liberals. We just want to make them aware of this possibility.

To prevent the conservatives winning yet another consumer battle, we suggest that the government pro-actively throttle conservative websites more but charge them the same (use Chinese government as a model.)

Why should any company charge more for using more? Everyone should pay the same equal price, no matter how much they use. If you eat less food you should pay the same amount as someone who eats more food. If you use less internet you should pay the same amount as someone who uses more internet. It's only fair.

Surprisingly, many conservatives and liberals are in a rare agreement over net neutrality, but for different reasons. Here are two opposing viewpoints from proponents of net neutrality:

  1. A citizen net neutrality advocate: "Without net neutrality, ISPs can charge us more money to visit Gmail or Facebook. We need to be protected from predatory ISPs."
  2. A Democrat politician: "Without net neutrality, the government can't force ISPs to restrict access to hate websites (like the Drudge Report.) We need to protect you from predatory information."

The position we progressives closest identify with is that of the Democrat politician who wants to stifle access to information.

There is debate whether net neutrality means government regulation of access or content. The truth is, nobody knows. We have to pass net neutrality to find out what's in it.

Allowing the government to control the internet to prevent companies from charging for Facebook seems about as overboard as blowtorching your house to kill a spider. Comcast hasn't yet charged extra for Facebook, so it could be argued that they probably won't. But we have to use scare tactics with years-old issues in order to convince people of the benefits of government control.

When government controls entire industries, great things happen.
Government control has so far worked splendidly with Obamacare. A few people had issues with their health insurance, so the government took over health insurance and made problems for everyone. As long as everyone is equal, it doesn't matter if there are more problems than before.

In a free-market system, when a corporation does something that customers don't like, the customers find another seller or innovate with a new product. In our progressive closed-market system, there is no need for innovation.

Why should fast internet even exist if only the rich can get it? This is why we support slow internet for all, and internet innovation resources to be directed elsewhere (such as entitlement programs.)

We also support government regulation of content, so that there are less (if any) conservative hate websites. In our system, there is only one opinion.

Support net neutrality. Throttle innovation - for the greater good! 

Thank You Ms Photoshopova and thepeoplescube.

No comments: