I agree to Idea Net Neutrality is free speech
Voting Disabled

291 votes

I disagree to Idea Net Neutrality is free speech

Rank5

Idea#9

This idea is active.
The Open Internet & the Freedom of Speech »

Net Neutrality is free speech

The Internet is about the exchange of information and ideas, net neutrality is so important so no one can control or suppress those ideas. Without net neutrality the internet is a propaganda machine for whom ever is in power.

Submitted by 5 years ago

Comments (52)

  1. This wo/man speaks the truth!

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  2. Well put.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  3. Really? I thought this was about bandwidth regulation, not content regulation.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  4. @iisralph

    It's both wrapped in one ugly package. AT&T/time warner/comcast can basically reduce certain websites bandwidths to the point that it is essentially removing the content from the internet. If it takes you two hours to load papajohns webpage you will end up going to dominos.com instead.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  5. @vandalin7

    I agree that it would indeed be a sad day if that were to happen. There is absolutely no evidence that it will. Are we to trade our freedom for insulation from an imagined threat?

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  6. iisralph

    I'm not sure I see why you think that preventing ISPs from throttling bandwidth is somehow an attack on freedom.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  7. @iisralph

    In May 2008, the Max Planck Institute released a comprehensive study that found both Comcast and Cox Communications to be deceptively blocking access to peer-to-peer file-sharing networks.

    In October 2007, the Associated Press busted Comcast for blocking its users' access to peer-to-peer file-sharing networks like BitTorrent and Gnutella. This fraudulent practice is a glaring violation of Net Neutrality.

    In September 2007, Verizon was caught banning pro-choice text messages. After a New York Times expose, the phone company reversed its policy, claiming it was a glitch.

    In August 2007, AT&T censored a live webcast of a Pearl Jam concert just as lead singer Eddie Vedder criticized President Bush.

    In 2006, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com -- an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.

    In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a contentious labor dispute.

    In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.

    Shaw, a major Canadian cable, internet, and telephone service company, intentionally downgrades the "quality and reliability" of competing Internet-phone services that their customers might choose -- driving customers to their own phone services not through better services, but by rigging the marketplace.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  8. you go girl

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  9. @marlanlike

    You seem to have misunderstood what I typed. I'm saying that anytime you allow your government to regulate something, you are giving them power over it. You may be fine with the current administration regulating this but they will not be in power forever. What then? They never give power back.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  10. The government already has the power to regulate the internet (indeed, it can regulate anything it wants if it gets the votes), and has done so. Arguing that we should never have good regulation because it increases the odds of possible bad regulation in some unspecified future is not only a specious slippery-slope argument, it seems to show a fundamental misunderstanding of what the government is and how it operates.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  11. Interesting comment. "it can regulate anything it wants if it gets the votes".

    Are you saying that you think this is good? I would agree that there are attempts to regulate just about every aspect of our lives. I am saying that I don't agree that this is a good trend. I would say that less government intervention into what I do and think is better.

    The internet is primarily about information sharing, both commercial and private. Control over this information "should" be considered against free speech rights. But I have noticed that free speech is normally defended only when the speech agrees with the controllers.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  12. @junkpit82

    I believe that I have a pretty good grip on what our government is and how it is supposed to work.

    At it's inception, our federal government was given specific rights over very specific things as outlined in the constitution. It was decided it would be simpler to list the things it could do because the list of things it couldn't do would have been too large. At every step, in every administration, our federal government has attempted to overstep those bounds. We the people MUST prevent them from doing so. That is our job as citizens. In all other matters we must give them the support they require.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  13. My point, to both of you, is that the argument of 'the government shouldn't do THIS regulation because that gives them POWER to do OTHER types of regulation in the future' is completely specious. The government DOES have that power already, and will have it in the future, whether it passes this particular regulation or not; I don't believe that passing this regulation makes any future regulation either more or less likely.

    In general I am against most regulation (especially when they're thinly-veiled subsidies), but I do not believe that being against all regulation and therefore opposing things that you admit would be good for the country is a tenable position.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  14. I would have to disagree. I believe that my line of thought here does have merit. If what you say is true, then our federal government already has the power to regulate whatever it wants. This would be in clear violation of our constitution.

    What you are proposing then is to hand the people that are currently abusing their power more power.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  15. @iisralph

    These principles are in place already. The net is neutral at this very moment. Telecoms already enjoy monopoly status; how much more deregulation do they want? This isn't a government take over. These regulations have been in place for a very long time. This has absolutely nothing to do with Obama or liberals and conservatives. Just as many corporations are for net neutrality. Microsoft, Google, and even Christian churches are in favor of these principles. This has to do with protecting the current functioning system of the internet.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  16. I totally agree iisralph. The media giants have been abusing their power and will continue to do so for as long as they can get away with it.

    Preventing monopolistic corporations from locking out smaller companies (by way of data-shaping and bandwidth throttling) is the only way to insure that competition can thrive and that the internet can remain a place of free thought and expression.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  17. @vandalin7

    So... If the net neutrality pieces are already in place, Why do we need this?

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  18. Our government does have the power to regulate the internet. It doesn't gain the power by doing it. You still haven't in any way justified the idea that the act of regulating is what gives them the power to regulate. In what way does this hand them more power?

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  19. "So... If the net neutrality pieces are already in place, Why do we need this?"

    The corporations are trying to eliminate these principles. That's what this is all about; Maintaining the status quo. These corporation want these principles "deregulated."

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  20. An beyond that, hey want to convince the public that these Neutrality regulations are actually Big Brother sticking his nose into our business and quashing innovation. Obviously the exact opposite is true, but if they can convince enough people of this, then they won't have to suffer from as much user dissent when they start screwing us over.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  21. the other day i saw something put eloquently the other day if we want to see a n Orwelles future just look in the mirror. Our cellphones can be tracked from social networks. Even our emails where given just to post here. The real enemy is someone who threatens our Rights. Namely our Right to Free speech.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  22. Ok folks, I can't do this all day. I've gotta bounce.

    Thanks to everyone involved for participating in an open debate without resorting to childishness. This has been refreshing.

    It's clear to me that we could run this in circles all day if we wanted. I'll try to make it back later. I think we all need more information about what exactly is going on here anyway.

    cheers

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  23. Net Neutrality is not freedom. It is not free speech.

    Market methods will optimize price, neutrality and bandwidth. If neutrality is important consumers can create seals of approval or consumer reports. They can insist that contracts be enforced and call "fraud" when it is seen.

    Free speech does not mean free stamps or free printing presses or free web-site tools. We don't want the government regulating printing presses so they have to print in full color. In the same way we must keep the government out of this issue.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  24. As has been said many many times on this site, free market forces cannot solve this problem because most ISPs operate as near-monopolies (most users only have access to one ISP, so they can't choose to take their business elsewhere).

    I wish that free markets could handle this problem. They usually do a better job than the government. However, in order for free market forces to work in this situation, we'd have to nationalize the internet infrastructure. I think that's probably the best idea, but I bet you're against it.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  25. To follow up, freedom is not ONLY freedom from the government, it's freedom from ALL coercive forces. The primary role of the government is to protect our freedoms against the influence of other individuals; this is why it's illegal to point a gun at someone and tell them what to do. Just because that gun is being held by a private individual rather than the government doesn't mean you have freedom. And the case here is exactly the same; because I only have access to Time Warner Cable in my area, they have power over my internet experience which I cannot reasonably counter on my own. Therefore, the government should step in to prevent them from misusing that power (or preferably tkae that power away entirely by opening up the market).

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  26. "Free speech does not mean free stamps or free printing presses or free web-site tools. We don't want the government regulating printing presses so they have to print in full color. In the same way we must keep the government out of this issue."

    That analogy is completely wrong. Net neutrality is giving anything away for free or telling any company how to design their content. It's just making sure everyone has equal opportunity to participate in the global market. Republicans are all about equity and Net Neutrality laws provide equity.

    The Net is also currently neutral. Right now it is completely neutral. So if like the way the government is controlling your internet now than you will have no problem with it.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  27. @iisralph

    "You seem to have misunderstood what I typed. I'm saying that anytime you allow your government to regulate something, you are giving them power over it. You may be fine with the current administration regulating this but they will not be in power forever. What then? They never give power back."

    The problem is that ISPs already have power over the internet, as vandalin's timeline shows. Ideally, we'd be able to limit the power of the ISPs through governmental regulation, but it'll be a very fine balance. We can probably never finish preserving net neutrality. It'll have to be a continuous thing, making sure that neither the ISPs or the government have too much power.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  28. Here is another example of ISPs and corporations censoring free speech on the internet.

    http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/10/23-5

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  29. junkpit82 wrote, "To follow up, freedom is not ONLY freedom from the government, it's freedom from ALL coercive forces."

    You are right. That is why we have laws against breach of contract against fraud, against theft.

    Those are sufficient. We don't need regulations creating any noise on top of that.

    NO to net neutrality rules (except government pipes).

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  30. Considering that free speech is essentially banned from public television since international media conglomerates have monopolized the airwaves, the Internet is the American citizens', as well as our global communities', shining light for free speech and communication.

    Following the money to who exactly is behind any movement away from net neutrality always leads to corporations, which are almost invariably in conflict with the demands of the public.

    FCC, who do you work for? We The People, your rightful owners, demand your servitude. Vote Net Neutrality.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  31. We all know the internet is changing the world in ways no one could have predicted (with the exception of Steve Jobs of course)

    It has allowed new avenues for collaboration, communication, and the transfer of information freely. It allows under privileged individuals access to all information human kind has acquired - unfiltered. Study after study prove broadband deployment significantly promote economic growth.

    We are seeing a natural power grab by those with money to take this tool away from the people. Power of information has finally shifted back to the people after hundreds of generations.

    The people have spoken - the internet is a commodity that's a RIGHT. The internet is speech, and keeping it neutral is FREEDOM.

    Anyone in that isn't in support of a neutral network either has: (1) an interest, as in profit, in the network (2) doesn't understand the complex nature of the network (3) attempting to block information from being distributed freely on that network.

    Failing to protect this vital network may be the single most destructive blow to man kind in history. Information IS power.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  32. The Internet is not a right.

    It is a good thing. It is important in protecting our freedoms. We must not risk it by giving the federal government more power over it. We must say NO to net neutrality rules.

    What we need is a removal of incentives and rules that help monopolies and big businesses in the trade.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  33. @Dar

    You are correct, the internet is not a right. However, the ability to be heard and seen in an equal and just manner *is* a right. Wal-Mart prohibits solicitors on their property. That means I cannot attempt to sway consumers to "Go shop at your local farmer's market instead!", let alone physically prevent people from shopping. Yet this is the very thing that is happening, and will continue to happen, if the neutrality of the internet is not protected.

    Comcast blocked game servers. This is akin to them blocking a game's "door" and them saying "go do something else instead". AT&T censored a Pearl Jam concert- akin to blocking the concert hall doors saying "Go listen to a pro-Bush band instead". This is worse than merely having a picket-line, but is stifling our freedoms of speech, choice, and lawful activity.

    If we do not stand up for ourselves, and ensure this does not happen, it will only continue to get worse.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  34. And what is wrong with WalMart and Comcast doing those things? It is their property. You don't have to shop at WalMart or buy services from Comcast.

    Does your game server work with long latencies? Change it so it does. Then encourage gamers to drop Comcast and go satellite. Work with a satellite provider.

    What are the DSL competing companies in Comcast areas? Work with them. Comcast will lose money if they don't do something.

    (Now it could be that Comcast is counting on Net Neutrality rules to set the stage for them to get government money for bandwidth and to block competition.)

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  35. If Comcast and Cox really are engaging in deceptive practices then no regs are needed. Legal action can work.

    No to Net Neutrality.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  36. @Dar

    "And what is wrong with WalMart and Comcast doing those things? It is their property. You don't have to shop at WalMart or buy services from Comcast."

    Nothing is wrong with Wal-Mart stopping me from saying "go to the farmer's market" while blocking their door. In fact, that's how it *should* be, so that people are *free* to go into Wal-Mart if they choose, or the farmer's market if they choose. I have no legal right to prevent entry onto property that is not my own. And that is my point.

    However, Comcast *was* stopping people from joining servers. People were *not* free to go into *neither* my servers, nor my rivals' servers. Or even the servers of completely unrelated games. What Comcast did was wrong because 1.) they promote that they were an "Internet Service Provider", that implies *all* of the internet, not just a portion of it, and therefore that falls under false advertisement. 2.) If they intend to only provide a portion of the internet, then they need to be specific- "a web-access provider", "an e-mail host", "a news client", "a conservative-only Internet Service Provider", etc. 3.) My server is *not* Comcast's property- it is the property of Gameservers. Comcast has no legal right to deny anyone access to property that does not belong to Comcast.

    And no, my game do not work with long latencies, nor am I the developer of said game. I am just one-step above the bottom of the proverbial totem-pole. If you are a gamer, then try playing a CounterStrike: Source game where the server is hosted in Malaysia, and your computer is in the U.S.- that is the equivalent of using satellite. I am not the CEO of Steam, Valve, or anything like that... I cannot make a FAQ that will reach all Comcast gamers encourage them to change ISPs... and even if I was, what would happen when other ISPs go the same route as Comcast, upon finding that Comcast is making a profit by denying service? Should I tell them to continue to change ISPs until they find some ISP that will permit access to the 27000 series of ports?

    And why in the world would I want my own server running off satellite? That's about as intelligent as shoving my thumb up my rear to try to scratch my nose. My servers don't even run off Comcast, so why would I want to change? Counterstrike: Source runs well with a latency of under 60, with a competitive requirement of no greater than 30. Satellite, one way, gives pings of upward of 200, and two way pushes 500 or more- a resultant less-than-1 frame per second. Completely unplayable as-is, and is wholly unsuitable for professional gaming.

    I don't know about Comcast's competitors. I don't pay attention to every ISP in every single town of the U.S., Mexico, Canada, South America, and across the ponds in both directions. It's not exactly my job to know that. It's my job to ensure "when something is broken, I fix it". Likewise, it isn't in the other ISPs' best interests to make deals with me- I cannot offer them anything beyond advertising space, and that alone will not cause them to lower their prices, increase their quality of service, and provide enough advertising to beat out Comcast in the eyes of consumers.

    And I doubt your comment on Comcast counting on Net Neutrality when they are fighting tooth-and-nail against it... and why would they need Net Neutrality to block competition, when they're already doing it now?

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  37. @Dar, your arguments only work in areas where there is a choice in your ISP. For many areas in the US, there are no options. If you want phone, cable TV, and/or internet you have to go through the exact same company. If you don't like their service, then you do without phone cable TV and internet.

    Also, do yourself a favor and never ever recommend to a gamer that he should use a satellite connection. You make a fool out of yourself when you do.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  38. @rkenned

    +1 on both points. I'm one of those people who get the choice of "my ISP" or "no ISP/phone/tv". And you're so right- satellite for gaming, be it casual or professional, is a foolish idea.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  39. rkenned wrote, "Also, do yourself a favor and never ever recommend to a gamer that he should use a satellite connection. You make a fool out of yourself when you do."

    If you read what I wrote, I said it was an Internet option and that the latency is too high for most games. Game developers can develop methods to counter that with predictive methods. But I never recommended it to a gamer.

    It is an alternative for Internet access. So is phone, dialup, and sneakernet. None of those are hot for games, except maybe chess.

    Having said that, we might wonder... Why is satellite latency so high? How can it improve to compete?

    With Net Neutrality rules, inventors will go do something else rather than risk problems with the feds.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  40. I know why DSL latency is high and it makes me push for net neutrality all the more.

    @Dar but you are not gonna like it. It has to do with innovation. Also, it has to with how data is transfered in DSL connection. Incoming packets are via satellite feed and outgoing are via land line.

    Well, idk if you remember this but AT&T bought up all cell phone vendors that it could. A couple year's later AT&T realizes that its losing the race for broadband. Then they remembered o wait we can use these satellites that no one is using. And the rest so they say is history. Never having to update landlines because dsl gives you broadband speeds. Unless, you want to send data both ways ie gaming. Instead of making a quality product they fed us a mush like paste. How is this innovation?

    and idk what 'internet inventors' you've talked to but none of the ones ive met gave a damn about fed regulations.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  41. I guess that I have never been able to game on the internet and I only experience minor twinges now and again. I bleed with you when I can't get a file up to one of my websites or when I have problems viewing a video but I don't think that is a great reason to bring the government into the provider game.

    Government regulation means government control. It doesn't, however, guarentee improved service. Currently, if there were enough people in your area who needed the bandwidth you require, you would probably have it because someone would want the business, would pay for the infrastructure and initially offer outrageous rates. As more people joined, the rates would go down.

    A neighbor of mine, who was fed up with the internet situation in our area, did a market study (called his neighbors), contacted two or three potential Wide Area Network providers, chose the least expensive (based on cost/bandwidth) and our neighborhood now has a very good internet option. No government involved.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  42. Net Neutrality is not improved service.

    Net Neutrality is PRESERVED service.

    -Nikko

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  43. Many of these blogs maintain that there is great danger in allowing groups or corporations or organizations monopolizing the internet for their own advantage. What organizations are larger or more powerful than the two major political parties in this country. Except o course the U.S. Government. It is proposed that new rules and their administration be undertaken by an agency of our Federal government. Freedom of Speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution might be better protected without regulation than having it be controlled by any government.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  44. I guess I think that Net Neutrality is a solution looking for a problem. In some cases, I have seen posts saying that they can't get the bandwidth they need where they live. In others, it looks like the content was censored because it was extremely high volume and would degrade performance for others.

    The solution is to regulate and have the government say what can be censored and to mandate bandwidth.

    In the past, the government has mandated to the auto industry, the banking industry, the phone companies, the cell companies and others. People have used the interstate as an example of what we need. I have driven quite a bit and have found an interesting parallel.

    Our publiccally maintained highway system is in shambles in many places. Why? Because we need to use general funds from everyone to make it happen. On the other hand, the toll roads are paid for by the people who use them. They are well maintained only if they make money. Most are better maintained than the free interstate.

    Free enterprise, not mandates, should be allowed to rule the internet. Profit is not a dirty word. Profit allows companies to acquire capitol for expansion, pay their employees and shareholders, and drives them to expand where there is a possibility for gain. No, I don't have real broad band where I live. Why, location. No commercial locations to justify the routers and the like. Also, my phone wires are too old (the ones in the ground). No, I'm not completely happy but someone in our neighborhood has now convinced a WAN company to put one in for the sub. We can get up to 6 Mb if we want to pay that much. Do I think we should mandate expansion into an unprofitable area like mine, no. Do I think that for economic reasons a company can block certain trafic, yes.

    Do I want Net Neutrality? NO.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  45. "it looks like the content was censored because it was extremely high volume and would degrade performance for others"

    umm this isnt exactly true there are also cases where they have chosen to block traffic for political or monetary purposes. Also, NN is more of a philosophical battle involving the rights of consumers vs the rights of corporations. Equating it to something physical takes away from this. We trust the government to protect us in the form of child labor laws, minimum wage laws, anti discrimination laws, whistle blower laws etc. A true NN will ensure that our progeny have the same freedoms of the internet that we enjoyed. This is actually a conservative argument we want something to remain the way it is generally and prevent future degradation.

    "Free enterprise, not mandates, should be allowed to rule the internet"

    This is true but filtering sites at your own whim is mandating. How is telling me what websites i can visit free or enterprise? If you can answer that ill consider changing my position. The final part about access to broadband has nothing to do with net neutrality.

    Also, the government already regulates the internet. There is no big government takeover sorry to disappoint you. NN FTW. Does anyone else think its funny how all the anti-NN people chain the words Net Neutrality and NO. It reads more like an ad than individual thought that way. Or is it just me?

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  46. Given that it is about censoring I guess I am more worried about an administration who goes after a news agency for criticising him being given this type of power. If you agree with the current president, then you would probably not have wanted the Bush administration to have this power. In most of the cases of abuse the problem was corrected when it was exposed.

    Many of the other posts do deal with Net Neutrality being some silver bullet which will give them unlimited access with a latency free connection. In this regard, I believe mandates are counterproductive. In many areas, running land line connections (or WAN towers) to houses is not economically prudent. At the very least, you require those who either like cities or put up with them to pay for those who live further out. The other alternative is having them pay a premium for the coverage. You are right, Satelite connections are always going to have at least .5 seconds of latency do to the slowness of light. (two round trips) I didn't realize that DSL used satelites but if that is true, you have a quarter second minimum. This bothers people but it is economically the best solution for sparse population densities.

    I guess I don't trust either party in this country enough to hand them the keys to information nor do I like mandates on businesses.

    5 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  47. "Open" and "Neutral" are Different meanings.... Neutral is Censored material. Open,that's the Freedom we want...UN-Censored,OR...DO WE???

    A problem,I personally,see with it being "OPEN" are the businesses. To keep them going,they have their rights as a company to keep private;also,there's always the copyrighted issues.

    Yet,As far as using internet as a "Tool" for learning,history,personal investigative studies;ancestry,personal use,blogging everyday life,socializing with family and friends,old and new,people we can't see on a regular basis,to keep in touch with them;I see nothing wrong with it staying "Open". To not have it "Open" takes away*Our Rights*,period.

    Yet,We have been/and ARE being,censored already.See?We've ALREADY been Violated of our Rights... There isn't one thing you can say anymore in an email,not even in a joking manner,you are taken as making a "Literal" statements about subjects.We Are Taken SERIOUSLY.Since we have the option,to HAVE the Net or Not? Right NOW? Let's take a min. to look back? It was announced that we are being PROTECTED,from plots going on,on the Net,they FAILED due to the Censoring. WHO? Realistically? Does the Government KNOW TO Censor? It's been stated MANY times now,they HAVE PREVENTED PLOTS FROM SUCCEEDING. Since they don't KNOW which direction TO look,WE NEED THEM. This is my opinion here,Neutral is best. Open is too Risky... Weigh the Pros and Cons? Just My 2 cents on this.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  48. Again, I still dont understand the debate here - the internet is already open. You can post and read whatever you want. If you don't like what your particular internet company is doing about BW or blocking content (usually content that would be harmful to their network or yours), then change providers. Be an infromed consumer. Do your homework. This is a free country. Unlike Iran or China, whose governments do regulate & control the internet. Do any of you want to live there?

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  49. "Net neutrality" is just another Big Government way to of saying the opposite of what it is.

    Kind of like "man made disaster". The term is bogus.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  50. Net Neutrality is all about censorship. Since when is a connection to the internet a "right" guaranteed by the Constitution? For those who don't understand, a connection to the internet is a privilege, just like owning a home or a car. Nobody is ENTITLED to an internet connection. Net Neutrality is all about government control of bandwidth but they are obscuring this fact with myths and half-truths about the broadband companies. Net Neutrality is anti-capitalism at its most sleazy. Net Neutrality is a tactic that even Hitler would be proud of. This idiot government of ours has no business interfering with the internet. If the libtards out there prefer a government controlled internet, then do all of us a favor and move to China or Iran. I'm sure you would be much happier.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  51. Agreed Net Neutrality is essential to ensure corporations cannot stifle or censor free speech on the Web. This is not about government control -- some are trying to spread misinformation and lies about Net Neutrality. We had it once before for 30+ years plus pro competitive Internet regulations banning mega mergers so we have a competitive broadband Internet access marketplace but the Bush Cheney Administration reversed 30 years of progress under both Democrat and Republican Presidents before him with total deregulations. He was the pro Big Business President allowing business and financial monopolization to occur resulting in less competition and consumer choices.

    Net Neutrality is the cornerstone of innovation, free speech and democracy on the Internet. We need open access to the Web to inspire positive change. With the recent MLK day now behind us I thought I'd share with you that some of us reflected on that day of the progress MLK helped bring when he led the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s to end segregation in America. We should not allow ISPs to segregate the Web in the same way the country was segregated. We need to empower independent voices in the media and on the Internet. We need more participation with more diverse voices on the radio dial, TV and the Internet.

    After all the Web empowers and inspires creativity as long as it stays neutral -- don't allow ISPs to destroy the single most important and wonderful thing about the Web.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  52. When has government meddling resulted in more freedom?

    The FCC Chairman's statements are very cleverly worded to sound positive, but really are just additional rules that could be used to control the Internet.

    How is Net Neutrality going to prevent the suppression of ideas? The statements of the FCC Chairman about preventing restriction really are to combat the service providers from throttling bandwidth for some very high-traffic services, which currently are causing problems for the providers. The providers don't want to lose business... they are going to increase bandwidth, as technology and money allows, to support these high-traffic services (like high resolution streaming video). The free market will take care of this problem. Nobody is restricting the bandwidth of people posting anti-government statements.

    It all depends on how these rules are used, whether they protect free speech or are used for other reasons. For example, this website is filled with comments which suggest that these rules would be used to end discrimination in terms of broadband access... that the government would force providers to increase bandwidth in under-served areas. The free market already forces providers to do so. Where there's money to be made, businesses invest. Or, do those who support Net Neutrality think that providers should be forced to put in additional bandwidth into areas that don't generate revenue? Does this mean that scarce taxpayer dollars will go to provide another entitlement to citizens? Or does it mean that the government will force providers to invest their own money into areas that will not generate enough revenue to pay for equipment. Either way you look at it, it's redistribution of wealth. Either taxpayer money going to provide service to under-served areas or the premiums paid by well-served areas going to pay for under-served areas. Taken to an extreme, the government could even force providers to become insolvent (and require government rescue because "The Internet is Too Big to Fail").

    Do you see how these two "harmless" additions to the FCC's charter could be used to harm our freedoms?

    I say we need LESS government intervention and the Internet is best without government meddling.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed

Vote Activity Show

(latest 20 votes)