Republicans Trying to Kill Net Neutrality, Think the Internet Isn't Cool

• I Wear Pants

  http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=f34e9fb0-01d5-4603-8026-698992e8913c&ContentType_id=77eb43da-aa94-497d-a73f-5c951ff72372&Group_id=505cc3fa-a767-40f4-8ac2-4b8326b44e94
  
  Seriously, no one can defend stupidity or malevolence of this magnitude. They think Net Neutrality is a regulation placed on the internet when it clearly is not. Net Neutrality is the idea that the internet is best as it has been, open and without ISPs being able to discriminate against data based upon who they like or get paid more from. That anyone disagrees with it shows that they either have a very fundamental misunderstanding of how the internet works or they are likely in bed with companies who stand to profit from being able to decide what traffic is more readily available/faster on the networks.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Techno-geeks disagree, as this column from C-Net explains.
  
  I tend to agree with them. The FCC made a power play here and little more.
  
  http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-20026326-94.html
• derek bomar

  

  why anyone would be against net neutrality is beyond me
• Writerbuckeye

  

  They're against government claiming jurisdiction when it has none.
• derek bomar

  

  Writerbuckeye;736977 wrote:They're against government claiming jurisdiction when it has none.

  
  you've heard of the commerce clause right?
• Ty Webb

  

  Writer....you're wrong on this one brother
• O-Trap

  

  Here's the problem with this whole topic.
  
  As long as ISPs remain private companies, the companies ultimately have the right to permitting the information they see fit through their service. Thus far, few cases of this data discrimination have taken place. I would personally despise any ISP that decided to do this if it affected me.
  
  However, suppose the U. S. government was to provide this kind of service ... I would then completely be in support of disallowing such a discrimination. No longer being privately owned, and being a monopoly of sorts, discrimination would be a royal pain.
  
  Ultimately, I think that the ends of net neutrality are good. I'm not yet convinced that these means are warranted, though, so I have to reserve my conclusion until later.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Ty Webb;736995 wrote:Writer....you're wrong on this one brother

  
  I don't think so. I haven't seen evidence of anything egregious that would prompt creating this regulatory system. If it's needed because we're seeing abuse, then yes, but from all I've read that hasn't been the case.
  
  If ISPs start doing power plays and blocking websites, etc., don't you think it's going to become a HUGE story...especially on the Internet (ISPs can't block everything)? And don't you expect the backlash would be just as huge by their customers?
  
  The Internet has been a very nice example of free enterprise in action since it came into being, and I'd hate to see all kinds of regulations start to creep in that take away the potential it has for innovation and job creation.
  
  I just don't see the necessity for these rules -- yet.
• stlouiedipalma

  I'm still waiting for the gratuitous Al Gore slam.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Okay...he's a fat pig who is perpetrating a huge fraud on the world and getting fatter because of it.
  
  Will that do?
• O-Trap

  

  Writerbuckeye;737025 wrote:I don't think so. I haven't seen evidence of anything egregious that would prompt creating this regulatory system. If it's needed because we're seeing abuse, then yes, but from all I've read that hasn't been the case.
  
  If ISPs start doing power plays and blocking websites, etc., don't you think it's going to become a HUGE story...especially on the Internet (ISPs can't block everything)? And don't you expect the backlash would be just as huge by their customers?
  
  The Internet has been a very nice example of free enterprise in action since it came into being, and I'd hate to see all kinds of regulations start to creep in that take away the potential it has for innovation and job creation.
  
  I just don't see the necessity for these rules -- yet.

  
  I take it you're against preemptive military strikes, then.
• I Wear Pants

  Writerbuckeye;736832 wrote:Techno-geeks disagree, as this column from C-Net explains.
  
  I tend to agree with them. The FCC made a power play here and little more.
  
  http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-20026326-94.html

  
  "The best hope for increased competition is wireless broadband. That's why it's so important for the FCC to get serious about spectrum reform."
  
  That's a quote from the guy who wrote that article. While it is important for the FCC to keep/get the spectrums and rules for them making sense the fact that the dude has given up on any sort of real competition in the traditional broadband realm tells a lot.
• believer

  

  derek bomar;736979 wrote:you've heard of the commerce clause right?

  
  Federal Policy 001: When all else fails, invoke the Commerce Clause.
  

  stlouiedipalma;737208 wrote:I'm still waiting for the gratuitous Al Gore slam.

  Writerbuckeye;737221 wrote:Okay...he's a fat pig who is perpetrating a huge fraud on the world and getting fatter because of it.

  And I'm sure Al would love to see the Feds over-regulate the Internet so he can get even fatter. After all he did invent it.
• O-Trap

  

  
• believer

  

  O-Trap;737320 wrote:

  You mean Al Gore is the missing link? This guy's amazing! Proof positive Darwin was right!