Net neutrality

[billwald]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/12/a_net_neutrality_regulation_pr.html?wpisrc=nl_tech

Without net neutrality anything with Christian (or NRA or ?) content could be intentionally put on a slow track

 

[rbell]

I guess the First Amendment is no longer important to our government.

Good grief--how clearly can a bunch of thugs seek to violate a clear-cut Constitutional principle?

What's next--outlaw Baptists?

 

[rbell]

Problems with this train-wreck of a policy:

-It comes largely from unelected appointees. In other words, we have no say in the laws, who writes them, and how they will govern our lives.
-It's been done in secret. Figures. These sorry cockroaches do all of their nastiness in the dark. But as has been said, "You have to pass the bill to know what's in it." Riiiiight.
-Since when did widespread, outright censorship become a good idea? Come on, folks--basic US Constitutional Republic principles here: God endowed us with inalienable rights, and the government should be ensuring them, not doing away with them. We should all have a "default" setting--to freedom. When in doubt, default to freedom. Even a California Democrat, with his/her/its limited cranial capacity, should be able to get that.
-The FCC doesn't exactly have a stellar track record of doing the right thing with regards to freedom of speech. Come to think of it...not much regarding our government does in the last decade or so. We're talking about the government that brought us Janet Reno and his twin brother Janet Napolitano...TSA silliness...Our "zero tolerance" idiocy in public schools...and assaults on all things Christmas. And we want them to have more power?
-Who's for this: The founder of Craigslist is one of the largest purveyors of prostitution advertising and child trafficking in the US. It's just been recently that under pressure, they've begun to make things difficult for the perverts. And needless to say...if labor unions are for something, then I see little reason to support it in any way.


I hope "net neutrality" dies a quick and painful death.

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/12/a_net_neutrality_regulation_pr.html?wpisrc=nl_tech

Without net neutrality anything with Christian (or NRA or ?) content could be intentionally put on a slow track

Yes, but with Net Nuetrality a Christian Web Host could be forced to accept content and hosting contracts from the PC Crowd...

So, it's a mixed bag.

Personally, I am more concerned about having a Christian Organization Host or carry pro-abortion or pro-gay content.

 

[Don]

Folks, there's a confusion of terms going on. Net Neutrality is supposed to indicate a freedom of the internet; it holds that companies providing Internet service should treat all sources of data equally.

In fact, this article seems to indicate that the feds are attempting to muddy the waters by referring to this as "net neutrality rules." Or perhaps it's the reporter writing the story.

If net neutrality is denied, then broadband carriers will charge extra regarding services provided; for example, Hulu vs. Netflix. Were y'all aware that Comcast, one of the largest broadband providers, has a relationship with Hulu, and would therefore provide a lesser service for its competitor, Netflix? This is what net neutrality seeks to prevent.

Without net neutrality, yes, there could be a potential for broadband carriers to decide to regulate certain religious messages.

Net neutrality exists NOW, and has since Al Gore first invented the internet (sorry, couldn't resist); Christian web hosts are not required to host any particular content. In other words, we should be fighting against any rules or regulations that seek to detract from the existing internet freedom we enjoy now.

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Yes, but, with all Government Intevention there are always unintended consequences.

And, there is no telling where the next obama appointee is going to take it.

Or, if, gasp, the American people *really* are stupid enough to reelect or elect someone worse than obama!

No the concept of treating *all* service "equally" can be far too easily abused.

Tooday it's a bandwidth issue. But, once this camel is born in this tent I gurantee that it will out grow the tent in short order!

I can always dump Comcast or MediaComm I can drop a few trees and get either Direct TV or DishNet. I can also get High Speed DSL.

If enough people *really* didn't like what ComCast was doing and they all dropped their service for a few months.... Don't you think the market would rule, at some point?

The Frogs are in the Water... It's a nice comfortable 100 degrees... For now!

 

[Don]

Yes, but, with all Government Intevention there are always unintended consequences.

And, there is no telling where the next obama appointee is going to take it.

Or, if, gasp, the American people *really* are stupid enough to reelect or elect someone worse than obama!

No the concept of treating *all* service "equally" can be far too easily abused.

Tooday it's a bandwidth issue. But, once this camel is born in this tent I gurantee that it will out grow the tent in short order!

I can always dump Comcast or MediaComm I can drop a few trees and get either Direct TV or DishNet. I can also get High Speed DSL.

If enough people *really* didn't like what ComCast was doing and they all dropped their service for a few months.... Don't you think the market would rule, at some point?

The Frogs are in the Water... It's a nice comfortable 100 degrees... For now!

Not sure I understand. The market rules now; Comcast and the other broadband services, however, are attempting to introduce a system whereby services available over the internet can be charged more to make their service available at higher speeds. That charge would be realized in two ways: One charge to the service to make it available at the highest speeds the service can pay for; and one charge to the consumer (you and me) to receive that service at the highest speed we can afford.

Net Neutrality says don't let the broadband companies start charging for "tiered services."

Net Neutrality rules say regulate the bandwidth and let the broadband companies basically start charging "fee for service" type rates.

If you've been enjoying your internet for the last few years, then you've been enjoying net neutrality.

The government intervention, in this case, is in favor of net neutrality rules, not true net neutrality.