Net neutrality goes poof

[Baratos]

Oh bugger.

 

[Qonfused]

What the ****.

 

[BaconIsGood4You]

:thumbs:

Although I'm not too optimistic that the government won't start regulating the internet in another fashion some time soon, at least it won't start now.

 

[French Ninja]

Fkuc it all!

*straps bomb on self and runs in general direction of Ted Stevems*

 

[Absinthe]

gg hf ****ing retards

 

[French Ninja]

This means that the organisation will not stand in the way of companies using differential pricing to make sure that some websites can be viewed more quickly than others. The report also counsels against net neutrality legislation.

Oh piss off you cack-faced wine-sodden pieces of human tripe. It's obvious that you are in the corporations hands; like always.

Fkuc you!

At least both my Senators aren't retarded.

 

[VirusType2]

Category: Bloggity Blog ? Civil Liberties ? Conservatives ? Economics ? ****ing Morons ? Internet ? We're Really ****ed

Sums it up.

 

[Fliko]

http://www.savetheinternet.com/
Quick guys, only 10 more days to tell your story

 

[Darkside55]

Everyone needs to sign the petition on that site. This is really something we all need to write in for, because it affects all of us. Don't be apathetic. Sign the petition, inform congress that we want to keep the net free from corporate meddling.

This thread should be stickied.

 

[Flyingdebris]

doesn't net neutrality bill though cause the government to meddle with the internet instead?

it comes down to either have the government mucking about enforcing stuff on the net, or having the corps doing whatever they want.

is one really better than the other?

 

[Darkside55]

I'd rather have government interests than corporate interests messing with my interwebs.

 

[Baratos]

doesn't net neutrality bill though cause the government to meddle with the internet instead?

The net neutrality bill makes sure that nobody meddles with the Internet. Without it, the two groups that provide acess for everyone else--governments and corporations--will be able to censor everyone who disagrees with them by making their brandwidth unaffordable for the dissenters.

 

[Acepilotf14]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE[/YOUTUBE]

The punchline is at about 15-20 seconds left.

 

[Vegeta897]

It is impossible for this to happen. Even if it does, it won't last. The internet is people. We are the internet. They can't **** with us because we'll **** 'em right back.

 

[clarky003]

Wow, this can't go through can it? what gives.. need to solve this dumbass problem of people with lotsof money having a disproportionate amount of influence over policies.

 

[-Psy-]

Is this for the US only? Poor bastards.

 

[VirusType2]

Is this for the US only? Poor bastards.

I can't see how it won't affect the entire world.

 

[Sulkdodds]

doesn't net neutrality bill though cause the government to meddle with the internet instead?

How precisely do you think that would happen?

Net neutrality only means that corporations are forced to treat all web pages equally. The only way the government could possibly tamper with that would be by making secret deals with companies to favour certain websites, which they can do anyway if there is NO net neutrality.

Without such laws, government could in fact strike deals (ie tax breaks, lucrative government contracts) with companies to prioritise certain websites and strangle others. So in this case having no regulation actually helps the government to intrude on your life.

Surprise! Sometimes the free market means less freedom!

 

[BaconIsGood4You]

It sets a precedent for government regulation. The situation of government providing deals with ISPs to strangle websites is not a danger of ISPs but a danger of government. In such a case we should aim to minimize arbitrary and corrupt government activities, not the ability of free entities.

I don't really know why everyone is in a tizzy for this net neutrality. Can you name an instance where a ISP has blocked a website? Its simply not in their self interest to do that, why would they ever want to limit their service? There is no problem so why do we need this solution?

And its also a matter of free speech. Why should a company be compelled to promote speech (websites) it doesn't agree with? If the company doesn't want to provide that service they shouldn't have to. Of course, if a company did start getting political with it service they would fail in competition to objective profit minded companies.

The free market will always be more free, heck, its in the name. Its just negative freedoms, the freedom from coercion (to display speech), not "positive freedoms" like the "freedom" to be heard (which must force an ISP to display said speech).