Webcams for a person to person conversation on the internet, no fees of yet, but? But the government should buy in bulk and use this. Small cost, big benefits. No more letters or e-mails, just a person to person talk on WebCams. (Also no phones with broadband and DSL) The internets future.
I am AGAINST the government regulating and controlling the internet. I view the internet as the ultimate in "free speech" and agree with Chairman Genachowski when he said that the Internet is the most transformational communications breakthrough of our time and an essential part of our lives. The Internet has become a powerful communications and economic force BECAUSE it has been free from government interference. To ...more »
At issue, the language the FCC crafted in its proposed rule making, specifically FCC NPRM Paragraph 106 which seems to suggest a blanket mandate that disallows ISP’s to prioritize access for content, application, or services providers. Digital Society, (a digital think tank that believes culture and commerce are inseparable, that the digital economy flourishes when people are free and rights are secure, and that free ...more »
Net Neutrality is essential -- by the way we've had Net Neutrality before - it is the principle of an open democratic Internet where anyone can go online and connect freely with others (it is a principle to prevent ISPs from blocking online access to certain services) we had Net Neutrality prior to 2005 when the Bush FCC made the error of stripping the Internet of this basic protection for the Internet. Net Neutrality ...more »
When our founding fathers established this country is was so that they could have protection from burdsome goverment that was going on in other countries. It was a Free counry, a country of choice, not of government control. Goverment was established for the Defense of the nation, thats it. They already controld exessivly too many areas of our lives, and we pay for it with taxes. Plain and simple, the FCC should ...more »
This seems like another example of our government
solving non-existent problems?
I AM SO CONFUSED I don't see what you guys are talking about.. I get everywhere I want to get, don't you? No site has ever blocked me (that I know of). I changed ISP's a couple times and did not have problems there either.. I do not see what is wrong with this system now.. I just don't. The people that pay for the site(property) should have control over their site not the government. Should they not? I mean it is ...more »
If by free you mean 'of no cost', then it will be free only to those who do not pay taxes. Why punish those who contribute to reward those that do not?
If you mean free as in the classic sense of freedom, wouldn't imposing FCC regulation be the complete opposite?
From what I gather, most of the net neutrality effort seems to be directed at the big communications companies. While I certainly believe that they need to be regulated per the other threads in this discussion, I also believe that there is a very-near monopolistic hold on the search engine portals (Google, MSN, Yahoo) that poses an even greater threat to net neutrality. A person could make the greatest and most-useful ...more »
Here are some of my thoughts on what rights we as consumers should be guaranteed. 1) Truth in Advertising. a) A consumer expects that if a service advertised at XXX speed, that service is a guaranteed speed across the service providers network up to Interconnecting Networks. b) Services advertised shall not be limited unless clearly stated in the service agreement. Services advertised as 'unlimited' will not have ...more »
The best check on any "bad" internet providers is the competition from other internet providers. Let the market competition work. I realize the government bureaucracy will always think that the solution to every problem is more government bureaucracy. The government bureaucrat is unaccountable to the consumer and to the voter. The government bureaucracy has no incentive to do anything other than to perpetuate itself. ...more »
MRMHOUTX I believe a free and open internet should be preserved. No government, be it the United States, or any other, should have the power or right to control the flow of ideas and knowledge. No government should have the right to monitor, block, or otherwise regulate the flow of ideas and knowledge through any communication medium. Free speech, freedom of expression, right to protest, and the right to speculate, ...more »
any attempt to control the flow of information by the government is an unacceptable attack on the first amendment
The cable company model is the worst most abusive model possible. Lets see the FCC force that industry to choose between sponsorship and subscription revenue but not both. The came in on not having both but by fraud sliped in the sponsorhip. If we are honest about what the internet actually does we see that it radically improves the quality and efficiency of communication. That being the case it will quickly make ...more »
Traffic prioritization is essential. Throttling certain uses is also essential. I want the best performing and most open Internet possible. Since all our voice traffic will soon go over these same access pipes, you bet I want my neighbors' BitTorrent porn downloads throttled back just enough so we all get guaranteed operation of the important services. Bandwidth is not infinite. We are on the verge of hugely increasing ...more »