FCC to Vote on Net Neutrality Regulations TOMORROW

[me2ontube]

did you give abandon youtube - why no videos on either channel for so long

[MerlinYoda]

Late to the game on this but we do need *real* net neutrality legislation (not overboard govt. control which was being pushed). All traffic needs equal handling (like with land line phones). I'd agree with the "if you don't like your provider, take your business elsewhere" crowd, but in some places, you may only have one high-speed provider available. True they could not purchase their service at all, but then they're much worse off than with the Comcast-esque traffic discrimination/blocking.

[rogerdodgeraviation]

Comcast has already been found guilty of discriminating against customers using peer-to-peer services. The FCC investigated Comcast after Comcast consumers complained. Comcast was found guilty. Net Neutrality means large ISP's must treat all customers fairly without discrimination.

[DigiLusionist]

I have absolutely no intention of abiding by either a Public Option HC system, or a government-regulated Internet.

Obama and the Liberal Democrats have gone way too far, and I've had it.

If they continue to try to push America even further to the left, I will take to the streets with millions of others to make our demands known.

Harry Reid and Pelosi, and their ilk will be driven out of the Capitol Building, if necessary.

[shinzoamx]

watch what obama think : watch?v=g-mW1qccn8k

[shinzoamx]

Mr Obama back off, how can be a neutrality if the govt is in charge of the net ? the freedom is taken away when the govt start helping the small voice over others to maintain neutrality that's not a capitalism (the good still, the bad gone ) it's socialism. if you think that is good just do the same think with free-market by helping some companies over others to get a neutral-market,however we gonna have just only one choice ,the govt choice(same damn thg with deff name no more competing)

[dth2ht4wds]

come over to my side. together we can win.

[picklebarrels]

I can just imagine in the future all the Conservatards calling an ISPs technical support line: "Yeah I want to cancel my service because you guys SUCK it NEVER WORKS"

Comcast rep: "BWAHAHAH....BWHAAHHAAHHA...si­r you signed a 3-year contract for phone, movie, and search engines with us, so, you can't move muahahahahha"

Conservatard: "W---well that's STUPID!"

Rep: "Yes, yes you are stupid"

*click*

[nephozo]

thanks for posting.this is serious.

and cute girl :)

[thewah]

My god, this is the most uninformed tripe I've ever seen.

Net Neutrality simply says that all internet traffic should be treated equally.

tt's already been shown that these practices are popping up. It's a lie to say they aren't.

[eurohim]

Sounds like rules for the sake of rules since it won't be fixing any actual problems.

[thewah]

It is already happening. Comcast already tried it, which is what started the legislation into motion.

The point of network neutrality is to keep the internet open and free like it is now, and not allow telecoms to inspect and prioritize traffic depending on who pays them the most.

[zeugmatis]

Right it's already open and free - why create yet another wasteful, costly bureaucracy to solve a nonexistent problem? If you don't like what your ISP is doing, take your business to their competition.

E.g. why can't the FCC website simply publish a document containing guidelines for ISP's or face the possibility of eminent domain? Incomparably cheaper and far less draconian, no?

[picklebarrels]

If you had any idea what you're talking about, this might be easier to explain.

"If you don't like what your ISP is doing, take you business to the competition." Yeah, except many can't and still get decent speed, and since services would be tied in with the ISP, I wouldn't be able to just up and change. If I sign a contract for a service, even if I hated it, I couldn't leave. So, yeah...stupid.

And Comcast has already fought, "suggestions". So, no, your idea wouldn't work.

[zeugmatis]

Since when are internet services *not* tied to your ISP?

Don't like Comcast? Don't give them your money.

See how easy that is? And how unnecessary an expensive and wastefu new bureaucracy is?

[picklebarrels]

Services aren't tied to my ISP because, for example, right now, I can sign up for Skype and have it work just as well on another ISP.

The way the ISPs want it is they get to determine whether or not Skype will work with their connection. As we've seen from Comcast, they're more than happy to eliminate traffic for individual services.

Sorry, calling people trolls won't cut it here. You're hardly the best when you clearly demonstrate you have no idea what you're talking about.

[zeugmatis]

And Skype works for you. Right now. So why are we creating yet another wasteful, expensive government bureaucracy to address a problem that doesn't exist?

ISP's can want whatever they want. That doesn't earn dollars. Great products earn dollars. Unhappy with Comcast? Give your money to the competition. Yes, it's that simple.

Now go crawl back under your little bridge. :-)

[picklebarrels]

Great products do not earn dollars if ISPs have the ability to artifically create demand for inferior products and outright block access to superior ones. As we've seen with Comcast, they're more than happy to do this.

Or do you think some of the biggest corporations in the world like Google are less capable in reading the terrain as you?

I don't know what the hell is the matter with you people, but if there's one issue you free marketeers should not be on the fence about, it's this one.

[zeugmatis]

If your ISP blocks ports - switch providers. They lose your money. This is how it matters - principles coupled with your money.

At the very least, this should be done on a *per-case* basis. Not some outrageously draconian bill that we can't rely on them anymore to read.

[picklebarrels]

The telecom industry has been proven to be an industry that is not afraid to collude.

Andthis isn't about blocking my ports. This is about blocking servers altogether.

For many, options are limited, and if services are tied in with ISPs, I can't very well just go to another ISP if I've bought services that only run on a specific ISP, now can I? And that's the very first thing they'll do: offer per-month rates for services that aren't at all worth it, locking you in to contracts.

[zeugmatis]

There is currently no discrimination whatsoever.  Again - why are we passing law to go against this? I mean srsly - they have nothing else to do?

You should be *for* this.

[picklebarrels]

But there has been discrimination. You only need to research the issue to discover where and when.

And, also, if you did your research, you can easily see that they've told you to your face that they are interested in discriminating against specific websites and services.

Being ignorant is not an argument.

[shooter348]

Thanks for keeping us informed Shelly!

[djsuperstar717]

i actually signed the petition for net nutrality

[gli96187]

They are using discriminating powers right now on the net. The prime example is google with youtube arbitrarily banning peoples accounts with little to no proof of policy violations, which many of the clauses in itself is selectively enforced. Yet Google will leave you alone if you posting videos of bikini girls, music videos, and teenagers fist fighting or going silly and immature acts. It's either make it free for everyone or none at all, google's own moto is suppose to be the "don't be evil"

[eurohim]

You don't have to use those services. There are other options.

[picklebarrels]

Yes, there are options now. But there won't be if we don't stop them. You really think ISPs are going to say, "Gee, guys, we should offer this product on our network because it's superior to our offering and we're all about consumers!"

You know, the same guys that are actively seeking to limit your choices?

If you're for competition, you're for net neutrality. What don't Conservatards understand about this?

[zeugmatis]

"But there won't be if we don't stop them"

...from something they never did? WTF, O?

The public networks are *private property*. This legislation exists to *circumvent the courts*.

What are you going to do after you kill the goose that laid the golden egg?

[picklebarrels]

No, they've already done it. Or, again, do you not know what you're talking about and haven't researched this at all?

How is legislation preventing them from suing? Are you sure you know how the legal system works?

The goose that laid the golden egg was de facto net neutrality. What happened when Comcast tried breaking it? Everyone noticed. So, we would have to conclude that net neutrality is the goose.

It's a shame we have to explain this to idiots so often.

[LouiesPlace]

Of course the government is going to take control of the internet. It's just another step toward complete government control over everything that we "free" Americans do.

[thewah]

Network neutrality is not, in the slightest, about government taking over the Internet.

It is about keeping telecoms from giving preferential treatment (on the network layer) to certain domains and/or services to those who pay an extra fee to do so. Currently the internet treats all packets the same.

The telecoms want to change that, and enshrining network neutrality into law would keep them from doing so, and keep the internet open and free like it is now.

[ArmitageX]

I'm sure they're doing this for something other than a problem that doesn't exist. Most likely control.

[onlywhenprovoked]

five stars

[me2ontube]

stars are great and i give her 5 million but we have been provoked and it's time for action