I think I am opposed to internet nuetrality

I had not looked at this issue previously.

I guess the issue is that the current law forced internet providers to give all sites equal treatment of sort, not slow down sites that don't pay them or speed up sites that pay them more, or other similar techniques.

This would make sense if the entire internet was a public resource, or any of us had public internet. My understanding is that very few people have public internet, most have private internet connections, even most of our public institutions (schools, county offices etc.), they get their internet through private companies.

So private internet providers invest in systems and should have the right as any store owner does, to decide what products they are going to sell in the store, what kind of display they are going to get, who they will sell them to and what price they will get...or the rights of any homeowner, to decide who is going to live in their home and under what conditions.

Net neutrality. although it sounds awesome, because then you can use the internet to sell your wares by only creating a website, you don't have to pay more for others for their resources to be able to see it, though you may currently market it.

I don't want to pay it personally, but I think it is moral and reasonable to allow internet companies to charge the people that post on the internet for access to their private networks. The charge the consumer for access to their private networks.

Imagine retail neutrality where stores had to start selling products from ANYONE that showed up with a blow up doll, or TV neutrality where any of us could make a TV station and they would HAVE to give us a numbered channel and broadcast it. Imagine housing neutrality, where anyone could come to your door and you had to house them. If you are going to answer any question, what makes the private internet something that website builders should have access to for free.

So even though I want more stuff for free, like access to post on Time Warner or Cox's internet, that is their internet and we are just using it after purchasing the rights to. It is not our internet, the internet for the most part is owned by companies or people and if you want what they have, it seems reasonable there should be a market to pay for it.

Again, I understand people's desire for free stuff, this does not justify using regulations to take from others.

I am opposed to internet neutrality because it is the equivalent of stealing. Perhaps, like public TV or food stamps, there should be a public program for folks that cannot afford to market or share their stuff on the internet.

The cool thing is that if they strike down this law, which looks possible, that the removal of this neutrality will put REAL costs on the internet. Right now many localities that are not internet hubs are giving up their economy to the internet hubs (towns that have Amazon warehouses or offices in them are doing better than downs with Kmarts) taking advantage of the relatively free ability to get to market to everyone in America. If it becomes more expensive on the internet, local stores will have more of a competing chance. Kids may grow up and stay in their community because they don't have to move to Denver, Boston or LA to get jobs.

Things always get better when the right price is placed in a free market. This will free to market for those that actually own the market pieces and allow us to then properly make purchasing decisions based on real price vs. the artificially low prices on the internet. If Amazon had to pay Time Warner things would not be so artificially cheap on the net (until Amazon buys Time Warner or vice versa).

No... it's the equivalent of sharing. A concept that seems totally foreign to you. Next you'll be suggesting that everyone should pay equally for using a county, city, state or federal road.

Walter, you are smart enough to address some of the points I made.

Do you thing anyone should be able to walk into any retail store and expect stuff their stuff to be sold there?

Why don't you discuss this? It the internet owned by private companies really just to be shared and that is it, just because you say so.

Now that I responded, I realize I have given this response to posts many times...to LJ because her responses are almost identical, without explanation, just her proclamation of where the private resource should go.

If you don't want to discuss things, my threads or posts may not be the best things to follow.

Don't we pay for those roads in all kinds of ways, many of which are proportional, though not perfect, to use. States are working hard to develop programs so that you pay per driven mile in their states, this will come soon. I am not sure why you brought that up. The internet is private and most roads are public, there is a great economic divide between the two. But in the end, the roads are paid for by the users in even more proportion than the net.

In regards to sharing, do you have any possessions I can share today? I bet you have stuff I could use. Please list your stuff and I will let you know what I want to share and for how often. I am glad you are so sharing. This will save me money and make my family better off.