YEAH! If Comcast wants to throttle my bandwidth, I'll just take my money to Verizon! Oops, Verizon is throttling my bandwidth too. And those two are the only networks in town. Well, I guess my only options are to support the oligopoly or live in a cave. YAY CONSUMER POWER!
So your suggestion is that the market should decide whether the internet should remain open and unregulated? Because corporations have done such a great job of doing what's right for the public so far? Brilliant.
Yeah like Obama & FCC are going to let you use them torrent sites. Stop kidding yourself. No government control AKA free market chaos is your best bet for torrent survival.
Who is going to get involved when FCC will do that. You? Do you think your mean letters & single vote will stop President Sarah Obama the 2nd from "fighting crime" on the Internets.
@saper321 Who is going to stop the corporations from screwing the internet up when you only have one choice of a broadband service provider, I ONLY have ONE. While we are at it why dont we deregulate everything how about the housing market..OOPS bad idea. How about we deregulate the stock market...OOPS..i forgot about the stock crash of 29. Lets even go a step further, lets get rid of health regulations, labor laws, pollution laws, and etc. CORPORATIONS WOULD LOVE US SAPER.
WHAT!!! are you kidden me!! COMCAST has already throttled their own customers from using torrent sites this is how it all began u freeking foools..Without the FCC stopping corporations from censoring and discriminating the internet the INTERNET WILL DIE AS WE KNOW IT
hanks to a.thinker: "if the government regulates that will only exacerbate the problem as then we the customers will have to not only have to fight the agendas of the companies but also the governments. We just have to make sure there is always a choice (that extends beyond trivialities) in providers and don’t allow any of them to obtain a monopoly."
Few examples? Wait until something happens? Comcast, Version, and AT&T have filed lawsuits over the issue, often making small gains toward ending net neutrality and creating greater profits by charging different rates for different content. If you have a libritarian free market philosophy where you think that's these corporations right, that's one thing, but lets not pretend that it isn't happening and that it won't create increasing hurdles for free speech.
This act shouldn't even be called "net neutrality." If our government wants to accurately describe the illegal measure it needs to be named "FCC INTERNET SEIZURE ACT OF 2011!"
Please explain how any packet data can be logically compared to hazardous material. I've never heard of packets blowing up and injuring people or property.
HazMat shipping is regulated by the government, not the carrier. The carrier simply decides to accept hazmat (and thus comply with the gov't regulations) or not. So you're wrong on that point.
Also, please google "tariffed telecommunications services" before spouting off any more nonsense about natural self-regulating systems.
Obama’s “FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn Free Internet a Civil Right for Every Nappy-Headed Child” watch?v=JWETGCggzcE She also voted for Net Neutrality,which could ultimately censor the internet impeding our first amendment rights of Freedom of Speech. watch?v=lGplqSh8fYU
.
Her dad is James Clyburn, former house majority WHIP. She’s probably aware our unfunded liabilities are $115 Trillion per debt clock. (Also Obama wants a “kill switch” for the entire internet!)
What I've understood from info gathering is, there will be some sites on the web that will be limited or out of reach for most people."neutrality" may not be the right word. It's closer to the truth to say discrimination. Public information is my not be viewable by Jane Doe in a small town who, pays for dsl on her phonebill and does her little blog to entertain her grandkids and stay in touch with her scattered family.
I agree with chill633. I would just like to add that with a little research it becomes more transparent to see that the government might do things to implement and/or heighten terrorist attacks. And now with obama and the FCC approving the presidential alert system. I would brace yourself for a false flag terrorist attack to give them reason to instill the presidential alert system in all telecommunications and information services daily.
Yes let's wait until the problem gets fully out of control before we do anything about it. SMART! Dur hhrur rrruhr... I mean hey if it's not going to happen why not have a rule against it? And if you read the actual proposed bill it is very specific so this guy is full of crap.
It's not so much as the FCC "regulating" the net, it would be more the FCC standing in the way of GREEDY corporations from throttling data that doesn't serve its financial interests. This video is a terrible attempt painting net neutrality as a bad thing.
@migraine516 By "Greedy", what do you mean? Isn't it the purpose of a business to be "Greedy"? The fact of the matter is, is that it's in the "Greedy Corporations" interests to make sure that they don't throttle any non-financial data? In the free market, companies that harm non-financial data will lose customers, and inevitably suffer. They would not do something as stupid as that.
@moonhitler It is absolutely the purpose of a business to be Greedy. If they can get away with making a profit by killing your grandma they not only will but have an obligation to their shareholders to do so. That's why we have you know laws and rules. Also if it's not profitble for companies to slow down certain sites why are they fighting so hard for the right to do so? This guy is being ridiculous.
@sinistar99 But in WHAT practical scenario will they have to kill a Grandmother? If they're exposed for committing unethical conduct... Guess what, their share prices will plummet. Why would they take a risk like that? And what about the board members; do you think they're variants on James Bond villains?
The companies want the right to conduct business as they always have- and they don't want some regulatory body constantly looking over them.
@sinistar99 In the end, the statement of "...If it's not profitble for companies to slow down certain sites why are they fighting so hard for the right to do so?" can be combated merely by rephrasing it.
"If it's not good for some people to say offensive, racist things, why are so many fighting for the right to say so?"
@logoism "Thank God we didn't elect Al Gore for president." Yes thank God otherwise we might not have had 911, the War in Iraq / Afghanistan, 8 years of stagnant GDP growth and steady job loss, Medicare Advantage... Thank God. Are you on Oxycotin or what?
@hyylo The Bill of Rights gives Government control.
Private Health care is a mess
Deregulation of the economy is a mess
Private contractors handling wars is a mess
Privatized prisons are a mess
I mail something --it gets there. I drive to work the roads work just fine. Government works just fine. People who want to screw you with impunity don't like government getting involved.
private health care? lol. the government has made it illegal for americans to buy health care from different states thus keeping costs high and reducing competition.
wars? lol. government lied about 9/11. it was a inside job.
prisons? lol. most americans in prison because government made it illegal for people to use cannabis.
look at public schools. they are controlled by government. they are a mess.
@sinistar99 You're child like admiration for government services given their consistently horrible results on health care, economic regulation, foreign wars, the judicial system, and last but not least the postal service is endearing. Heck they're not nearly as bad as some other governments, but thats like saying a kick to the groin isn't as bad as a knife wound. The fact that you want to put more in their hands is the idiotic part.
I am pissed that when I try to share youtube videos it does not happen. They already censor emails I send and they are put in the spam box for Microsofts outlook.
Yeah those politicians hate free speech. If a company sponsors a video, and at one point in that video a person says they want to rape dead baby fetuses, the company doesn't want their name on that sort of speech, and removes it. Why does the government have any involvement here?
@davenetdog "BOTTOM LINE....It Politicizes Internet content. WHhhhoa! is right." BOTTOM LINE no it doesn't any more than the First Amendment politicizes free speech.
@InternetLad By that logic, lets get the government to monitor your youtube comments and filter them accordingly, lest they drown out competing views.
@InternetLad By what standard InternetLad? You're asking the government to impose on private individuals who are breaking no laws, what you believe they should transmit or repress in the name of (what you deem) as "fairness". The same argument goes for your youtube account. Why should we not pass a law instituting committees to monitor each persons youtube account to make sure the most popular ones express all views equally? Why not a youtube neutrality law enforced by the state?
@rbairos1 I think this equates more to insuring that all websites and services receive equal treatment, or that each ISP distributes bandwidth in a "neutral" fashion to every website and service.
I.E. An ISP couldn't block access to a controversial or competing site or service. Just because it's government monitored doesn't mean they're going to start editing websites (if they were doing that i'm sure sites like wikileaks would be shut down already) We've seen no evidence as of yet of that.
@InternetLad I understand perfectly well what 'net neutrality' initially entails, but its the exact same argument that would allow the government to intrude upon any private medium, to insure what *it* deems neutral. The only case net neutrality is for ISPs that are publicly/owned. However N.N goes further and imposes upon *all* ISPs, private or otherwise, how they can express themselves. If your newspaper, stretch of optical cable, tin can phone only supports Harry Potter fans, so be it.
@InternetLad The sad thing is people are fooled into believing its the government protecting 'freedom of speech'. But theres an important difference between 'free from government coercion of your speech' and 'free to use other peoples stuff' for your speech. Why shouldn't net neutrality allow me to post my views on the front page of the NY times for example? Its a horrible horrible law that fools the gullible into thinking they're being protected by a problem that does not exist.
@rbairos1 If the problem "doesn't exist" then what's the problem with having a rule against it? If nobody eats babies, would you be against an anti baby eating law? It's such a ridiculous non-argument to say that because it's not happening yet we should just allow it to happen and then do something about it. And if it's such an impossibly bad business practice then why are the telcoms fighting the bill already? For what so they can NOT do it? Ridiculous.
@sinistar99 Eating babies is a crime against the baby as its a non-voluntary act of violence. Building and setting up an ISP that caters exclusively to 12 year old Justin Beiber fans (or whatever the ISP owner creates) is not. Inserting laws into non-criminal acts is a problem, as suddenly youve given the state control of a once free system. Telcoms are fighting it because everything the govt touches, it kills. It will stifle innovation, profit and ensure stagnant mediocre service for all.
@rbairos1 youtube account to make sure the most popular ones express all views equally?... That's NOTHING at all like Net Neutrality nor is it even a stop on the most ridiculously contrived slippery slope one could slide down from it. These arguments are like saying we don't want the first Amendment because we want the government to stay out of freedom of speech.
@rbairos1 " By that logic, lets get the government to monitor your youtube comments and filter them accordingly, lest they drown out competing views" No that logic doesn't lead there at all. It's completely non-sequitor and makes no sense at all.
Comcast can charge for a pipe & a per-movie charge for renting video. BUT all they get is the pipe charge if you stream from Amazon/Netflix. Since they own the pipe they want to "tweak" it so their service is better. This way they can charge TWICE.
That is why separating delivery and content is vital. If not, everyone might as well move back to AOL. This is what net neutrality is about. Keep the pipes neutral. You pay for bits, and bit are bits. You don't have to pay extra for Google bits.
@chill633 It's like saying that sending a package of TNT is the same as sending a package of gummy bears; "package is package", right? Wrong. Carrier in general has the right to control the content and set different prices for different content. But of course, they usually don't do it. Why? ISPs have good reason to stay neutral - it is called competition. But if you want bureaucrats to replace this natural self-regulating mechanism then mercy on your soul...
Ah yes, leave it to the free market. That's why we don't need child labor laws or anti- monopoly / trust laws right? Fail.
No clear net neutrality example? How about AT&T trying to ban skype about a year ago because streaming calls were too packet heavy for their 64 billion in profits.
Think about your other utility providers. ALL OF THEM are either strictly regulated or publicly owned. You don't have 2 sets of gas, water, or electric lines coming into your house, do you? You only get one choice, so that choice needs to be regulated. Cable TV and internet is no different. True, there are some alternatives, but they either can't compete on quality of service, or they just can't break off enough market share for cable providers to take notice. Regulation is needed.
Oh this is rich. The problem with electric companies supposedly is that they charge at the monopoly rate because they're the only game in town in a certain area. That there are hundreds of them doesn't matter because they're all geographically isolated.
That there are hundreds of ISPs doesn't matter because they're geographically isolated, but oh wait, the issue is not general monopoly pricing but content discrimination. Shutting off content in one little area will only result in PR problems.
Not that the bane of private utilities is that horrible anyway. Despite the natural monopoly, utility companies in the US in 05-06 earned about 23% profit, which is high as one would expect from a natural monopoly, but you want to bring in the earmarking billmaking process with all of the tagalong crap just to reduce your utilities by (maybe) 10%? Are "public" utilities cheaper than "private" utilities even? You may have all that BS and no gain at all.
A "free market solution" CAN NOT naturally create what's best for everyone in the absence of true competition. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 deregulated the industry to enable competition, but it only created consolidation and huge price increases. Most of America only has access to 1 or 2 providers. Since 96 cable rates have risen 31.9%, nearly 3 times the rate of inflation, because there's no competitive environment to allow consumers to choose what's best and let natural selection work.
Well since 96' cable has changed. Also if rates went up 31.9%, did profits go up that much? If so, then why aren't you investing in new cable companies? It sounds like a great profit opportunity. Network effects? Well that's what stocks and corporations are for: amassing so much that you create your own effect. If you want to vaguely assert the TCA 96' was a slackening of controls, I'll vaguely assert it increased controls. Just reading wikipedia, it looks like it did increase controls.
This isn't a free market competition/profitability issue, this is a First Amendment issue. We are very close to having every single source of media and information completely owned and controlled by no more than 4 or 5 corporations. Everything from content creation do delivery networks, right down to your cable box. These providers can do whatever the fuck they want, because there is NO COMPETITION. Most markets have no more than 2 choices. Freedom of speech should NEVER be subject to profits.
Large corporations use gov't to impose regulations that are tailored to big firms. The state is a tool for the corporations, and they'll probably use some sausage bill that'll be labeled "net neutrality" to further consolidate the ISPs by making it harder for small-time ISPs. This'll allow them to cartelize, throttle content (after buying off the FCC), and there'll be no way for smaller ISPs to step up and break the cartel. IOW, they want to do to the net what they did to tv and radio.
Wait, first you say there are hardly any examples of what should be called "censorship" & then sight an example of it actually happening. Stating that it has barely ever happened & that proponent of NN must rely on hypotheticals. But, your example shows the hypothetical in action. Yeah, the FCC sucks, but when push comes to shove, corporation can buy government. So, simplify. The resulting question is who do I want controlling content?
A lot of confused liberals who think the governments goal is ALWAYS to make us freer. That's what I've gathered so far, haven't found many republicans for it... I'm a libertarian though, so OF COURSE I know better :)
It's not going to "fix everything". Nothing can "fix everything. In the real world there are flaws in every system, but someone is going to have control. Do you want that to be the FCC or competing businesses?
Comcast already started throttling BitTorrent traffic, and every ISP out there would love to move to some sort of tiered plan rather than an unlimited download with limited bandwidth model. I do agree that giving the FCC complete control of the internet is a bad idea, but to say that the magical market will fix everything is a philosophy no one but Ted Stevens would believe.
@romel91 You seriously think the internet needs regulated by the GOV'T?
These are the same people who wanted the 'kill switch' for the internet... Lets recap, internet came out in the late 80's for consumers.. We had 56KB download speeds for awhile. We increased those speeds to MB which are THOUSANDS of KB's per second. Internet got cheaper all along the way. Now, most people have the internet, and so the gov't must regulate it for THEORETICAL future problems, anything wrong with this pic?
@romel91 When consumers get pissed off because their internet is degrading (which hasn't happened), they will change service providers... Especially gamers, and movie watchers, who pay higher amounts for very fast internet.. This affects company decisions.. You don't think it's strange that businesses are coming up with the ideas of how the internet should be regulated? (obviously to benefit themselves)
Think about it, which is cheaper, innovating, or just taking advantage of the fact that you have a natural monopoly, and save money by neglecting your infrastructure and charging your customers more?
What possible incentive do the big ISPs have to innovate and upgrade?
None!
If you want a relatively unregulated overpriced home entertainment network, go back to on-demand from cable and pay $5 for a movie, I will continue to torrent, wankers.
I don't have a choice of ISP, it's either comcast, or dialup.
And, seeing as how these parasitic ISPs live on subsidy, the public has every right to control them.
They exist to service US.
They get special exemptions and privileges.
As long as they get a single cent of my tax dollars (and they get much more than that), we, the people, have every right to impose regulations on them.
Great video, a must watch!!! And, IMHO, the ISPs have every right to control content, no one forces Cablevision on me, I can switch to Verizon or NetZero, etc if Cablevision does something I object to. Right now there is CHOICE, with "net-neutrality" choice will be eliminated by whichever group of idiots is in control of the FCC!!!
Great video, a must watch!!! And, IMHO, the ISPs have every right to control content, no one forces Cablevision on me, I can switch to Verizon or NetZero, etc if Cablevision does something I object to. Right now there is CHOICE, with "net-neutrality" choice will be eliminated by whichever group of idiots is in control of the FCC!!!
@Marcantonio724 I agree with you (somewhat), but only if the people actually have a choice. Where I live in the Bay Area, Comcast has a complete monopoly on cable. I would love to go to some other provider, but I can't. And no, satellite providers are not a viable option.
Fuck the FCC its about controll because they are losing the truth is getting out and the Gov is not liking it, and Al gore hope ur head explodes dick head.
@sonyradio2 A lot of stuff. That is one reason the US almost had a full financial collapse. If people want a true free-market, then look no further than Somalia, Haiti, and the numerous other third world countries. I am not a bleeding heart liberal but it is naive to think that all regulation = bad. I also think that people who are for a total free market are also naive. A completely free market will only work when a population is well educated and informed. Sadly this is not the case in the US
@digitalintent I don't call for the complete disbanding of regulatory rules over the net but I am also not looking forward to a "Chinese style" net censorship...that is what I was alluding to...
@rebelliouspixels Yep, you can only rely on powerful special interest groups pointing the guns of government in the direction they see fit to get anything done in this world. Moron.
@NewsPoliticsInfo Text messages are meant to be a person to person communication, if you mass send out spam to phones, that is a big deal expecially in that anyone without a plan would have to pay for it (as most EVDO uses know if some dolt has their number and sends txts to the datacards SMS number, they will never know they are getting them until a bill arrives).
Are you locked to Verizon as a provider? do you have no other choices in cell phone providers?
Once FCC takes over the internet they will be under political pressure from concerned soccer moms to ban porn. And BOOM! no internet porn cause future wannabe president need something to run on. Bit Torrent? Got to ban it, since it help terrorists and what not.
What about those pesky foreign sites that take away traffic from good ole' American mom & pop sites? Politicians will protect unionized websites by slowing connection to foreign sites. And everybody will cheer them on.
Net Neutrality should be a local issue, not federal. I have ONE choice for my Cable provider, so essentially Knology has a monopoly on my house. In most cities you only have one or two choices for high speed cable internet (all other types suck). The cable generally requires permits and agreements from the local government to run the main trunks, therefore a good city government could say no permits unless the lines are unrestricted (or only blocked agreed upon ports).
Hey retard! We have always had net neutrality. Corporations want to take it away. It is going to open up censorship on the internet. Neutrality standards are black and white. Their is no room for the FCC to get away with anything. Either all internet traffic is being treated equally or it is not.
yeah dude. NN has always been inplace. it just means that private interests cant determine the info you want to look at and the rate it is delivered to you. government regulation would just ensure that doesnt change.
the government controls speed limits too, maybe those should be based on what company you buy your car from...
This video sucks first pearl jam is the example. At&t blocked 4chan, Comcast was caught throttling bittorent, that's already occurred in the US, plus the same companies are blocking services like Skype in others countries like Canada and Egypt. Do some research! What the Last Mile is lobbying for is they want to turn internet into cable TV where you pay extra to access Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Skype. Worst of all,most markets have monopolies, so there is just one ISP for Cable or DSL
this video is full of lies. comcast definitely has meddled with bittorrent traffic. verizon definitely alters dns to redirect bad addresses to their search engine. on the other hand all the examples this guys cites ARE theoretical. IF the FCC decides to go rogue and block stuff it doesn't like and congress, the president, and the supreme court decides to go along for the ride then we have a problem. Well no kidding sherlock if they did that net neutrality would be the least of our problems.
The person forgot to mention Comcasts proposed acquisition of NBC. If this does happen then Comcast will have a reason to filter content form competing companies such as FOX and ABC.
Regulations can keep us from having serious problems in the future. Im sorry but in corporation we trust is not something I believe in. Corporations suck and so does the government. The idea has to be to keep either of them from screwing up our lives! On this issue, at least, that means having someone creating a set of rules that keep the ISPs from playing favorites.
Mike, that is kind of a stupid position honestly. Should we wait till there are traffic accidents to put in stop signs as well? How about FDA inspectors, should we lose em because no one has died recently from a burger? As far as the "market working" goes, the US is 22nd in broadband proliferation... It isnt that we shouldnt do anything it is that we shouldnt do the wrong thing. Meaning: we shouldnt create regulations that make the situation worse.
@yojimbo1981: your analogy is akin to asking whether we should wait until Iran / Iraq develop their own nuclear weapons, or strike'em now? No, I believe US is about 11th and if you look at the top countries like South Korea, Japan, Singapore, they are densely populated countries with somewhat more competent bureaucracy (in that they weren't trying to regulate or capitalize on it by taxing it).
There are already signs that the gov't wants more than neutrality(google EFF Net neutrality)
your analogy is akin to asking whether we should wait until Iran / Iraq develop their own nuclear weapons, or strike'em now?
Attacking a country is not the same as putting restrictions on corporations. If you are trying to say ALL preemptive action is bad? Then Im sorry, but you are wrong.
Tooltalk No, I believe US is about 11th
There are actually a lot of different reports about this and most place America between 10 and 20. At least one ranks the US 22nd. Call me a pessimist
@yojmibo1981; that's exactly my point. People dying of traffic accidents or from food poisoning (or wars) are fallacious analogies - they are much different than regulating the net in the name of "free-speech".
Why do you feel that US has to be in the top? Firstly, there are a lot of reasons why other countries are better in terms of broadband deployment (eg, geography, culture), but it's most certaintly not b/c telecomm/calbe providers are less regulated here.
So the issue is scale? Hyperbole... Little pedantic for you tube don't you think?
While the analogy might have been inflated, the point of it was not. Heres a better one then: If youre in a car that is overheating do you pull over and fix it or do you let the engine catch on fire?
There, does that fit within the proper elements of scale of consequence for you. Or, am I now understating the consequence? Please grandmaster of all things fallacious let me know
I am not advocating for regulations on what ISPs charge or something. I simply dont want them, or the government, messing with what is on the net and how that information is treated. I want the government to keep corporations from doing this. I know, they arent doing it, YET! Its naive to believe that if corporations are left to their own devises that they will not, eventually, attempt to exert influence on the net. The net is THE most important form of communication in existence.
@yojimbo1981: again, you are still missing the underlying point here. Corporations can be informally regulated by market forces (ie, changing technology, consumer preferences, competition) - that's why early competition to the internet CompuServe, Prodigy, AOL are no longer in business. The gov't regulations however are rigid, politically motivated and more often than not written by special interests - that's precisely why telecomm/cables are known for their regional monopolies than competition.
Your argument is, fundamentally, that the market represents the will of the people more accurately and effectively than the government, as the government is corrupt. Well no, the market represents the will of MONEY. The internet does not conform to the supply and demand models you imagine anyway, its not a tangible product. You pay for ACCESS, consumer impact is minimal. Also, why is the government corrupt? Because the very same cooperate powers whos eager hands you want to leave the net in.
@yojimbo1981 :ok, the problem here is that you fail to grasp the basic understanding of free-market vs. managed economy. Without being too pedantic, your arguments are based on logical fallacies, strawman, red herring, bifurcation to name a few.
The difference in its simplest form, as Hayek explains it, who's doing the planning - is it individuals doing it basing it on their needs, finance, priorities or some central bureaucrat, liberal elites, professional reformers planning it for everyone el
@yojimbo1981: else on their superficial observation. As L Summers once said, u need to understand that "the invisible hand is more powerful than unhidden hand. Things happen in well-organized efforts without direction controls, or plans" by some central authority.
Your circular logic is also making me dizzy. Your arguments on money, intangible (hello, ever heard service economy?) economic model are nonsensical red herrings, strawmans. Like I said before, the gov't regulations are dangerous,
@yojimbo1981 : b/c they are short-sighted, rigid, political-motivated*, and often influenced by unscrupulous characters who pretends to have "the solutions".
Likewise, the best policy the gov't ever created was back in the 90's when it opened the NSFnet allowing the use beyond military & academia and gradually relinquished/delegated the control. It's important to know your limit ad when to take a step back.
The point is not underlying, it is your opinion (pedantic, sucks doesnt it?). An opinion, rather obviously, I dont agree with. The market just dictates that there will be a reaction by industry powers. That that reaction will have anything to do with what consumers want is not a given. The industry will react yes, but it might just be about handling consumer concerns. I dont want freedom of speech or expression monetized as a cost benefit analysis on some spread sheet.
There are already signs that the gov't wants more than neutrality(google EFF Net neutrality)
Im sure there are signs that people within the government want more than they should have. We shouldnt let them have it. It is after all our government
Anyone else find it hilarious that Moby was practically in tears?
Anyway, "free" Australia is already moving toward more regulation and the net service there is already more expensive when compared to the US. I look at places like China where even benign facebook is blocked and it scares the hell out of me. Not all ISPs are created equal, some are simply better, but in my travels only governments block content, and block it they do. Never let the vampire in.
Why not just compete against each others views and products instead of trying to censor your opponents? May the best man win sort of thing. That's what real capitalism is all about.
A thoroughly unserious treatment of the topic. How about a discussion about how many choices most residents have in high speed internet providers? How about a discussion about how Comcast tried to block Bit Torrent?
@samablog; I think we've been discussing that all along. The telecomm/cable industries are already heavily regulated - the gov't at federal & local level control every from their contents, prices they are allowed to charge for installation, settop box, monthly fees, how many providers are allowed in your region, etc. So no wonder there isn't enough competition. As for Comcast blocking Bittorrent, if you don't like it, move to another provider.
Switch to another provider?!?!? What other provider? Isn't the whole point here that Comcast & Time Warner have monopolies nearly everywhere they operate?
Don't forget the typical conservobot tactic is to setup the current situation as a "free market" system when in fact it's an artificial and rigged monopoly that has nothing to do with consumer choice. When did any consumer decide that at&t should provide their phone system and comcast covers their cable TV?
Using a website could be looked at as equal to a telephone conversation between two people. We would be horrified if a phone company we paid for phone service messed with our phone conversations with ads or worse service for some callers.
The FCC's power grab over the net is about to go down in flames when they lose the DC court case. This administration needs to keep their commie hands off the internet.
Can anyone name a known computer scientist/engineer/technologist that is on the record against net neutrality? it seems to me the arguments are mired down by people who don't really understand the technology and either have a pro-government or pro-business stance on the subject. What technically are the situations when net neutrality is not beneficial to those that use the internet?
@xxxx*xxxx: can you name one who is not politically connected?
You don't sound like a tech savvy nerd, nor are you old enough to understand things like Unix or Cisco routers have evolved over the years. No, this is not a technical problem as much as it is a political power -grabbing by those who want "control".
i appreciate your assumptions. not sure of your reasoning but.. Here is a tech argument i took from a proper nerd thread on the subject, "i would say that the law should recognize an ISPs right to QoS bandwidth in order to ensure egalatarian and equal treatment of all customers. but it should be at the bandwidth level, not targeting individual services." taken from the defcon forums. I'm sure idiots in both parties want "control" it is why I asked the tech question.
@xxwwxx: no, my reasoning is that there has never been egalitarian / equal treatment in the networking business. If you want better, faster, consistent service (QoS), you pay more for it. When you subscribe to cable service, you are at most entitled to 10mbs downstream with fractional upstream shared by a whole bunch of people. That's why some folks buy dedicated T1 ($500/month in some places) despite its cost. There's nothing unusual about this arrangement
My point of the defcon thread is that you have people on both sides of the political divide arguing the technical points of net neutrality rather than making diminutive points for a chosen political perspective. There was a time in the network business of equal treatment but this is before network hardware had QoS/SPI/DPI/etc and before shared xDSL/cable access. Before that you used a B channel (modem), BRI-ISDN, or a T service. Routers just routed. BGP/OSPF etc. This is the pre '95 internet.
@xxxwwxxx: given the libertarian / anti-establishment inclination of Defcon crowds, I'm surprised that you express such view.
Unfortunately, the problem is more of a political problem than a technical one. Many of you are very naive in assuming that the gov't is just going to enforce network neutrality and nothing more - this can't be further from the truth (google: eff & "net neutrality"). As for you ATT & Skype example, there's nothing stopping me from moving away from ATT b/c of my disliking
@xxwwxx: of their restrictive services - if they make bad business decisions, they lose business. As for those whining about having access to 1 ISP/cable providers, it's no surprise that telecomm/cable are some of the most regulated industries in America - the gov't regulates everything from how much they can charge their settop-box, to where they can set up poles, special channels for public, ed, gov etc . We are stuck with fewer choices we have and monopolies precisely b/c the gov't dictates
@xxwwxx: how they are run. Then politicians who make such legislations are bought by the very same corporations they purported to control. You can settle your differences with corporations in a free-market, but when the gov't's is involved, their misguided intervention is permanent.
Technology is only relevant in a sense that the market force along with advancement in technology would ameliorate these issues (more than likely, there won't be one single answer, but many different ones) in free-
@xxwwxx: the threat you are referring to is more of a political discussion - whether consumers are entitled to certain guaranteed services or whether it should be defined by regulation.
As I said in my previous posts, even between ISP's, they often pay more to get direct, unrestricted dedicated peering connections for their customers (their other alternative being slower public access shared by many). And it should be their business decision to offer services (T1, dialups) with limited services
Great job picking the least impressive advocates of net neutrality.. So I get to pick the mascot for Reason TV...and I pick... let's see.... Gary Busey!
How about you interview Larry Lessig, Chris Anderson, Linus Torvalds, or about a thousand other big name net technologists.
The internet is such that anyone trying this BS will get slammed by net pressures... which are much stronger than the FCC. Screw them, we don't need "net neutrality" - we can handle it on our own terms, as we always have.
I don't put faith in the free market. It works in some spheres, like prices of food, clothing, commodities. But we must remember that it is an economic system, not a social system, and not a political system. The free market is what it is, you shouldn't apply it outside economics.
I am skeptical of this video because the arguments for net neutrality make sense. The only high speed internet I can get is Comcast. If Comcast blocked websites, I wouldn't have that free market to resort to.
Dirge987: your problem isn't that free-market is limiting your choices, but that your local politicians chose to regulate who can provide services in your area.
That is a sound argument, but I, nor you knows exactly where there is little competition in my area. It could be from government regulation, but who really knows the case.
The argument against net neut. have been "government regulation is bad", but I disagree. Some regulation is needed in respect to the law, and government should step in when businesses break the law.
If an ISP decides to limit access to websites, then it is a deliberate attempt to block free speech.
@dirge987: (1) telecomm/cable are some of the most regulated industries in US. They already control prices (of your set top box, installation fee, to monthly subscription, etc), contents, licensing, # of public channels etc at both federal / local level.
(2) As said in other posts, google EFF & Net Neutrality
(3) Your free speech is already protected by the Constitution. You have issues with free-speech, take'em to court.
I am skeptical of anything a liberal, libertarian, or conservative has to say, because some of the time, they have their interests to pursue.
I like the concept of net neutrality, but after reading what the EFF had to say, I have to disagree to it if the act does put the FCC in control because their nature is to block free speech. The FCC would do more harm than good. I might not trust big business, but I trust the FCC less.
tooltalk, thank you for your insight and your perspective.
Dude you're against it because Al Gore and Moby are for it? Brilliant!
Dude Corporate interests have already stifled free market growth of the Internet. We are FAR behind most other developed nations and WE invented it! And Yes an ISP HAS tried to squash free speech on a cell network that was deemed not in their corporate interests.
really that's what you got? 4:26 long video and rail on that and some hypothetical with no source? infringements do exist but they pale in comparison to the millions of people on the internet. You have a choice between multiple dsl providers, satellite, cable and dial up internet. HOW would anyone block internet access? just switch to another provider and tell all your friends. the market works most of the time if you bother to use it properly
it's just no one is fucking retarded and paranoid as you are, that's like saying businesses competing for your money somehow has a motive to do you disservice. nobody likes censorship but the argument is once a monolithic entity resides control and authority over something they can't be held accountable for it would open the door for abuse. there has been many examples where government started something out of good intent that later mutated to something else. just think a little, not hard.
Net neutrality means ISPs can't fuck you over. Do you want to live in a world where the internet is sold like cable/satellite packages? Oh wait yeah of course you would.
Fuck yeah, it went so well for the Chinese and all.
I mean, it's good to have government blocks on looking up things like "civil liberties", "human rights", and "freedom of speech". Who the hell needs to be reading about those things.
YEAH! If Comcast wants to throttle my bandwidth, I'll just take my money to Verizon! Oops, Verizon is throttling my bandwidth too. And those two are the only networks in town. Well, I guess my only options are to support the oligopoly or live in a cave. YAY CONSUMER POWER!
MyNameIsBucket 2 months ago
So your suggestion is that the market should decide whether the internet should remain open and unregulated? Because corporations have done such a great job of doing what's right for the public so far? Brilliant.
reddenc028 2 months ago
@reddenc028 Because the government has done better, huh?
ROMaster02 2 months ago
Message to government toadies.
Internet is NOT Vietnam. We don't have to carpet bomb it in order to save it.
saper321 6 months ago
COMCAST HAS ALREADY SCREWED THEIR OWN CUSTOMERS THAT ARE USING TORRENT SITES....THIS IS VIDEO IS ANOTHER PIECE OF CORPORATE PROPAGANDA
dissturbbed 7 months ago
@dissturbbed
Yeah like Obama & FCC are going to let you use them torrent sites. Stop kidding yourself. No government control AKA free market chaos is your best bet for torrent survival.
saper321 6 months ago
@saper321 tell that to comcast who already throttled torrents and would have killed them altogether if it wasnt for the FCC getting involved
dissturbbed 6 months ago
@dissturbbed
Who is going to get involved when FCC will do that. You? Do you think your mean letters & single vote will stop President Sarah Obama the 2nd from "fighting crime" on the Internets.
saper321 6 months ago
@saper321 Who is going to stop the corporations from screwing the internet up when you only have one choice of a broadband service provider, I ONLY have ONE. While we are at it why dont we deregulate everything how about the housing market..OOPS bad idea. How about we deregulate the stock market...OOPS..i forgot about the stock crash of 29. Lets even go a step further, lets get rid of health regulations, labor laws, pollution laws, and etc. CORPORATIONS WOULD LOVE US SAPER.
dissturbbed 6 months ago
@dissturbbed
Well all I can say is that big government is preventing me from marrying my corporation.
saper321 6 months ago
WHAT!!! are you kidden me!! COMCAST has already throttled their own customers from using torrent sites this is how it all began u freeking foools..Without the FCC stopping corporations from censoring and discriminating the internet the INTERNET WILL DIE AS WE KNOW IT
dissturbbed 7 months ago
hanks to a.thinker: "if the government regulates that will only exacerbate the problem as then we the customers will have to not only have to fight the agendas of the companies but also the governments. We just have to make sure there is always a choice (that extends beyond trivialities) in providers and don’t allow any of them to obtain a monopoly."
mihajlo9 9 months ago
Few examples? Wait until something happens? Comcast, Version, and AT&T have filed lawsuits over the issue, often making small gains toward ending net neutrality and creating greater profits by charging different rates for different content. If you have a libritarian free market philosophy where you think that's these corporations right, that's one thing, but lets not pretend that it isn't happening and that it won't create increasing hurdles for free speech.
paladin0322 9 months ago
@paladin0322
Free speech is alive and well on the internet. on the net you can see and read the most OUTRAGES, DISGUSTING, FUCKED UP SHIT.
Show me TV channel with similar content. Now guess which medium is controlled by FCC.
I rest my case.
saper321 6 months ago
in order to protect the internet from censorship we most turn it over to those who actively censor. This we call rational.
Xtro2005 10 months ago
net neutrality; Internet Fairness Doctrine Part 2.
Xtro2005 10 months ago
This act shouldn't even be called "net neutrality." If our government wants to accurately describe the illegal measure it needs to be named "FCC INTERNET SEIZURE ACT OF 2011!"
highlyevolved420 10 months ago
@highlyevolved420 Which would translate to the "Community Internet Reinvestment Act of 2011".
Xtro2005 10 months ago
has Obama given up on Net Neutrality????
link000000 10 months ago
Comment removed
chill633 11 months ago
Please explain how any packet data can be logically compared to hazardous material. I've never heard of packets blowing up and injuring people or property.
HazMat shipping is regulated by the government, not the carrier. The carrier simply decides to accept hazmat (and thus comply with the gov't regulations) or not. So you're wrong on that point.
Also, please google "tariffed telecommunications services" before spouting off any more nonsense about natural self-regulating systems.
chill633 11 months ago
Obama’s “FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn Free Internet a Civil Right for Every Nappy-Headed Child” watch?v=JWETGCggzcE She also voted for Net Neutrality,which could ultimately censor the internet impeding our first amendment rights of Freedom of Speech. watch?v=lGplqSh8fYU
.
Her dad is James Clyburn, former house majority WHIP. She’s probably aware our unfunded liabilities are $115 Trillion per debt clock. (Also Obama wants a “kill switch” for the entire internet!)
Mummificationify 11 months ago
What I've understood from info gathering is, there will be some sites on the web that will be limited or out of reach for most people."neutrality" may not be the right word. It's closer to the truth to say discrimination. Public information is my not be viewable by Jane Doe in a small town who, pays for dsl on her phonebill and does her little blog to entertain her grandkids and stay in touch with her scattered family.
yafanna3 11 months ago
I agree with chill633. I would just like to add that with a little research it becomes more transparent to see that the government might do things to implement and/or heighten terrorist attacks. And now with obama and the FCC approving the presidential alert system. I would brace yourself for a false flag terrorist attack to give them reason to instill the presidential alert system in all telecommunications and information services daily.
warmstoneheart 11 months ago
No I'm not like you... I didn't spend months pondering it I took 20 minutes and read the fucking bill because I'm not a god damn moron.
sinistar99 11 months ago
Yes let's wait until the problem gets fully out of control before we do anything about it. SMART! Dur hhrur rrruhr... I mean hey if it's not going to happen why not have a rule against it? And if you read the actual proposed bill it is very specific so this guy is full of crap.
sinistar99 11 months ago
They're anticipating problems with the FCC anticipating problems. Interesting mirror.
StitchTart 1 year ago
What market pressures? If I want anything faster than 56k here, I have exactly one choice.
bjornredtail 1 year ago
It's not so much as the FCC "regulating" the net, it would be more the FCC standing in the way of GREEDY corporations from throttling data that doesn't serve its financial interests. This video is a terrible attempt painting net neutrality as a bad thing.
migraine516 1 year ago
@migraine516 By "Greedy", what do you mean? Isn't it the purpose of a business to be "Greedy"? The fact of the matter is, is that it's in the "Greedy Corporations" interests to make sure that they don't throttle any non-financial data? In the free market, companies that harm non-financial data will lose customers, and inevitably suffer. They would not do something as stupid as that.
moonhitler 1 year ago
@moonhitler It is absolutely the purpose of a business to be Greedy. If they can get away with making a profit by killing your grandma they not only will but have an obligation to their shareholders to do so. That's why we have you know laws and rules. Also if it's not profitble for companies to slow down certain sites why are they fighting so hard for the right to do so? This guy is being ridiculous.
sinistar99 11 months ago
@sinistar99 But in WHAT practical scenario will they have to kill a Grandmother? If they're exposed for committing unethical conduct... Guess what, their share prices will plummet. Why would they take a risk like that? And what about the board members; do you think they're variants on James Bond villains?
The companies want the right to conduct business as they always have- and they don't want some regulatory body constantly looking over them.
moonhitler 11 months ago
@sinistar99 In the end, the statement of "...If it's not profitble for companies to slow down certain sites why are they fighting so hard for the right to do so?" can be combated merely by rephrasing it.
"If it's not good for some people to say offensive, racist things, why are so many fighting for the right to say so?"
moonhitler 11 months ago
Thank God we didn't elect Al Gore for president.
logoism 1 year ago
@logoism ...,Actually, we did.
migraine516 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@logoism "Thank God we didn't elect Al Gore for president." Yes thank God otherwise we might not have had 911, the War in Iraq / Afghanistan, 8 years of stagnant GDP growth and steady job loss, Medicare Advantage... Thank God. Are you on Oxycotin or what?
sinistar99 11 months ago
@logoism ...and bank bailouts thank God for those too... I could go on and on...
sinistar99 11 months ago
Net Neutrality gives government control.
government control of health care is a mess.
government control of the economy is a mess.
government control of education is a mess.
government control of the internet?
government wants to control the internet because people use the internet to expose the government lies.
hyylo 1 year ago
@hyylo The Bill of Rights gives Government control.
Private Health care is a mess
Deregulation of the economy is a mess
Private contractors handling wars is a mess
Privatized prisons are a mess
I mail something --it gets there. I drive to work the roads work just fine. Government works just fine. People who want to screw you with impunity don't like government getting involved.
sinistar99 11 months ago
@sinistar99
private health care? lol. the government has made it illegal for americans to buy health care from different states thus keeping costs high and reducing competition.
wars? lol. government lied about 9/11. it was a inside job.
prisons? lol. most americans in prison because government made it illegal for people to use cannabis.
look at public schools. they are controlled by government. they are a mess.
hyylo 11 months ago
@sinistar99 You're child like admiration for government services given their consistently horrible results on health care, economic regulation, foreign wars, the judicial system, and last but not least the postal service is endearing. Heck they're not nearly as bad as some other governments, but thats like saying a kick to the groin isn't as bad as a knife wound. The fact that you want to put more in their hands is the idiotic part.
rbairos1 11 months ago
I am pissed that when I try to share youtube videos it does not happen. They already censor emails I send and they are put in the spam box for Microsofts outlook.
sharkattack1313 1 year ago
Yeah those politicians hate free speech. If a company sponsors a video, and at one point in that video a person says they want to rape dead baby fetuses, the company doesn't want their name on that sort of speech, and removes it. Why does the government have any involvement here?
asleeperj 1 year ago
BOTTOM LINE....It Politicizes Internet content. WHhhhoa! is right.
davenetdog 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@davenetdog "BOTTOM LINE....It Politicizes Internet content. WHhhhoa! is right." BOTTOM LINE no it doesn't any more than the First Amendment politicizes free speech.
sinistar99 11 months ago
Stick to politics, Moynihan. You are clueless when it comes to technology.
uschiotze 1 year ago
this guy is basically saying "wait until there is a problem, then look for a solution"
lol, apparently prevention is NOT the best medicine anymore.
InternetLad 1 year ago
@InternetLad By that logic, lets get the government to monitor your youtube comments and filter them accordingly, lest they drown out competing views.
rbairos1 1 year ago
@rbairos1 actually i'm pretty sure that's the opposite of net neutrality.
InternetLad 1 year ago
@InternetLad By what standard InternetLad? You're asking the government to impose on private individuals who are breaking no laws, what you believe they should transmit or repress in the name of (what you deem) as "fairness". The same argument goes for your youtube account. Why should we not pass a law instituting committees to monitor each persons youtube account to make sure the most popular ones express all views equally? Why not a youtube neutrality law enforced by the state?
rbairos1 1 year ago
@rbairos1 I think this equates more to insuring that all websites and services receive equal treatment, or that each ISP distributes bandwidth in a "neutral" fashion to every website and service.
I.E. An ISP couldn't block access to a controversial or competing site or service. Just because it's government monitored doesn't mean they're going to start editing websites (if they were doing that i'm sure sites like wikileaks would be shut down already) We've seen no evidence as of yet of that.
InternetLad 1 year ago
@InternetLad I understand perfectly well what 'net neutrality' initially entails, but its the exact same argument that would allow the government to intrude upon any private medium, to insure what *it* deems neutral. The only case net neutrality is for ISPs that are publicly/owned. However N.N goes further and imposes upon *all* ISPs, private or otherwise, how they can express themselves. If your newspaper, stretch of optical cable, tin can phone only supports Harry Potter fans, so be it.
rbairos1 1 year ago
@InternetLad The sad thing is people are fooled into believing its the government protecting 'freedom of speech'. But theres an important difference between 'free from government coercion of your speech' and 'free to use other peoples stuff' for your speech. Why shouldn't net neutrality allow me to post my views on the front page of the NY times for example? Its a horrible horrible law that fools the gullible into thinking they're being protected by a problem that does not exist.
rbairos1 1 year ago
@rbairos1 If the problem "doesn't exist" then what's the problem with having a rule against it? If nobody eats babies, would you be against an anti baby eating law? It's such a ridiculous non-argument to say that because it's not happening yet we should just allow it to happen and then do something about it. And if it's such an impossibly bad business practice then why are the telcoms fighting the bill already? For what so they can NOT do it? Ridiculous.
sinistar99 11 months ago
@sinistar99 Eating babies is a crime against the baby as its a non-voluntary act of violence. Building and setting up an ISP that caters exclusively to 12 year old Justin Beiber fans (or whatever the ISP owner creates) is not. Inserting laws into non-criminal acts is a problem, as suddenly youve given the state control of a once free system. Telcoms are fighting it because everything the govt touches, it kills. It will stifle innovation, profit and ensure stagnant mediocre service for all.
rbairos1 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rbairos1 youtube account to make sure the most popular ones express all views equally?... That's NOTHING at all like Net Neutrality nor is it even a stop on the most ridiculously contrived slippery slope one could slide down from it. These arguments are like saying we don't want the first Amendment because we want the government to stay out of freedom of speech.
sinistar99 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rbairos1 " By that logic, lets get the government to monitor your youtube comments and filter them accordingly, lest they drown out competing views" No that logic doesn't lead there at all. It's completely non-sequitor and makes no sense at all.
sinistar99 11 months ago
too late. They passed it. Go back to sleep, America.
scottshu975 1 year ago
Comcast can charge for a pipe & a per-movie charge for renting video. BUT all they get is the pipe charge if you stream from Amazon/Netflix. Since they own the pipe they want to "tweak" it so their service is better. This way they can charge TWICE.
That is why separating delivery and content is vital. If not, everyone might as well move back to AOL. This is what net neutrality is about. Keep the pipes neutral. You pay for bits, and bit are bits. You don't have to pay extra for Google bits.
chill633 1 year ago
@chill633 YES why don't people get that... Oh no GOVERNMENT AAAAAH!
sinistar99 11 months ago
@chill633 It's like saying that sending a package of TNT is the same as sending a package of gummy bears; "package is package", right? Wrong. Carrier in general has the right to control the content and set different prices for different content. But of course, they usually don't do it. Why? ISPs have good reason to stay neutral - it is called competition. But if you want bureaucrats to replace this natural self-regulating mechanism then mercy on your soul...
pooltoo 11 months ago
This is so wrong it hurts.
Net neutrality is codifying "common carrier" status and keeping delivery separate from content creation.
Yes, it has happened. Comcast was nailed a few years ago for throttling Vonage and others while touting their "superior" VoIP service.
Just this week Comcast squeezed Level 3 to pay extra to keep Netflix streaming video working smoothly.
*I* paid for the bandwidth, damn it. I shouldn't have to pay extra to go places Comcast thinks is in competition with them.
chill633 1 year ago 2
@chill633 Well then stop purchasing their services if you don't like them dummy...
pooltoo 11 months ago
Ah yes, leave it to the free market. That's why we don't need child labor laws or anti- monopoly / trust laws right? Fail.
No clear net neutrality example? How about AT&T trying to ban skype about a year ago because streaming calls were too packet heavy for their 64 billion in profits.
peapodsss 1 year ago
@peapodsss I've been trudging through these insane comments and I'm so glad some people get it. Phew!
sinistar99 11 months ago
No problems, yet we need big government to get involved?
Who, but big government, could be in favor of this?
randomscience1 1 year ago
Think about your other utility providers. ALL OF THEM are either strictly regulated or publicly owned. You don't have 2 sets of gas, water, or electric lines coming into your house, do you? You only get one choice, so that choice needs to be regulated. Cable TV and internet is no different. True, there are some alternatives, but they either can't compete on quality of service, or they just can't break off enough market share for cable providers to take notice. Regulation is needed.
TheAjc612 1 year ago
Oh this is rich. The problem with electric companies supposedly is that they charge at the monopoly rate because they're the only game in town in a certain area. That there are hundreds of them doesn't matter because they're all geographically isolated.
That there are hundreds of ISPs doesn't matter because they're geographically isolated, but oh wait, the issue is not general monopoly pricing but content discrimination. Shutting off content in one little area will only result in PR problems.
fringeelements 1 year ago
So your analogy fails.
Not that the bane of private utilities is that horrible anyway. Despite the natural monopoly, utility companies in the US in 05-06 earned about 23% profit, which is high as one would expect from a natural monopoly, but you want to bring in the earmarking billmaking process with all of the tagalong crap just to reduce your utilities by (maybe) 10%? Are "public" utilities cheaper than "private" utilities even? You may have all that BS and no gain at all.
fringeelements 1 year ago
A "free market solution" CAN NOT naturally create what's best for everyone in the absence of true competition. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 deregulated the industry to enable competition, but it only created consolidation and huge price increases. Most of America only has access to 1 or 2 providers. Since 96 cable rates have risen 31.9%, nearly 3 times the rate of inflation, because there's no competitive environment to allow consumers to choose what's best and let natural selection work.
TheAjc612 1 year ago
Well since 96' cable has changed. Also if rates went up 31.9%, did profits go up that much? If so, then why aren't you investing in new cable companies? It sounds like a great profit opportunity. Network effects? Well that's what stocks and corporations are for: amassing so much that you create your own effect. If you want to vaguely assert the TCA 96' was a slackening of controls, I'll vaguely assert it increased controls. Just reading wikipedia, it looks like it did increase controls.
fringeelements 1 year ago
This isn't a free market competition/profitability issue, this is a First Amendment issue. We are very close to having every single source of media and information completely owned and controlled by no more than 4 or 5 corporations. Everything from content creation do delivery networks, right down to your cable box. These providers can do whatever the fuck they want, because there is NO COMPETITION. Most markets have no more than 2 choices. Freedom of speech should NEVER be subject to profits.
TheAjc612 1 year ago
@TheAjc612
>> "this is a First Amendment issue."
That's why I want the FCC to regulate the internet!
sticksquash 1 year ago
Large corporations use gov't to impose regulations that are tailored to big firms. The state is a tool for the corporations, and they'll probably use some sausage bill that'll be labeled "net neutrality" to further consolidate the ISPs by making it harder for small-time ISPs. This'll allow them to cartelize, throttle content (after buying off the FCC), and there'll be no way for smaller ISPs to step up and break the cartel. IOW, they want to do to the net what they did to tv and radio.
fringeelements 1 year ago 2
Wait, first you say there are hardly any examples of what should be called "censorship" & then sight an example of it actually happening. Stating that it has barely ever happened & that proponent of NN must rely on hypotheticals. But, your example shows the hypothetical in action. Yeah, the FCC sucks, but when push comes to shove, corporation can buy government. So, simplify. The resulting question is who do I want controlling content?
MrRazorChild 1 year ago
what corporation would dare block or slow down content
and expect that publicity to attract more consumers?
GovernmentSham912 1 year ago 2
@GovernmentSham912
A lot of confused liberals who think the governments goal is ALWAYS to make us freer. That's what I've gathered so far, haven't found many republicans for it... I'm a libertarian though, so OF COURSE I know better :)
Clyaton 1 year ago
@romel91
It's not going to "fix everything". Nothing can "fix everything. In the real world there are flaws in every system, but someone is going to have control. Do you want that to be the FCC or competing businesses?
Shimdidly 1 year ago
the lady from famely times looks so ugly now!, her face is like crap,..
Enjoyepicmovies 1 year ago
Comcast already started throttling BitTorrent traffic, and every ISP out there would love to move to some sort of tiered plan rather than an unlimited download with limited bandwidth model. I do agree that giving the FCC complete control of the internet is a bad idea, but to say that the magical market will fix everything is a philosophy no one but Ted Stevens would believe.
romel91 1 year ago 2
@romel91 You seriously think the internet needs regulated by the GOV'T?
These are the same people who wanted the 'kill switch' for the internet... Lets recap, internet came out in the late 80's for consumers.. We had 56KB download speeds for awhile. We increased those speeds to MB which are THOUSANDS of KB's per second. Internet got cheaper all along the way. Now, most people have the internet, and so the gov't must regulate it for THEORETICAL future problems, anything wrong with this pic?
Clyaton 1 year ago
@romel91 When consumers get pissed off because their internet is degrading (which hasn't happened), they will change service providers... Especially gamers, and movie watchers, who pay higher amounts for very fast internet.. This affects company decisions.. You don't think it's strange that businesses are coming up with the ideas of how the internet should be regulated? (obviously to benefit themselves)
Clyaton 1 year ago
Think about it, which is cheaper, innovating, or just taking advantage of the fact that you have a natural monopoly, and save money by neglecting your infrastructure and charging your customers more?
What possible incentive do the big ISPs have to innovate and upgrade?
None!
If you want a relatively unregulated overpriced home entertainment network, go back to on-demand from cable and pay $5 for a movie, I will continue to torrent, wankers.
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
The free market FAILED in so many ways.
The market didn't create the internet, academic and state subsidy did.
If it was left up to the market, we would all still be on crappy cable tv, watching the home shopping network or some other corporate garbage.
The closest thing we'd have to an internet would be some walled-garden crap.
The market didn't get us to the moon, and the free market, in-fact, sucks for many types of innovation.
This is coming from someone who invents things for money.
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
I don't have a choice of ISP, it's either comcast, or dialup.
And, seeing as how these parasitic ISPs live on subsidy, the public has every right to control them.
They exist to service US.
They get special exemptions and privileges.
As long as they get a single cent of my tax dollars (and they get much more than that), we, the people, have every right to impose regulations on them.
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago 2
I have one problem with this video:
Don't we have net neutrality now? I thought the argument was about whether or not we should get rid of it.
KagexMane 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Great video, a must watch!!! And, IMHO, the ISPs have every right to control content, no one forces Cablevision on me, I can switch to Verizon or NetZero, etc if Cablevision does something I object to. Right now there is CHOICE, with "net-neutrality" choice will be eliminated by whichever group of idiots is in control of the FCC!!!
Marcantonio724 1 year ago
Great video, a must watch!!! And, IMHO, the ISPs have every right to control content, no one forces Cablevision on me, I can switch to Verizon or NetZero, etc if Cablevision does something I object to. Right now there is CHOICE, with "net-neutrality" choice will be eliminated by whichever group of idiots is in control of the FCC!!!
Marcantonio724 1 year ago
@Marcantonio724 I agree with you (somewhat), but only if the people actually have a choice. Where I live in the Bay Area, Comcast has a complete monopoly on cable. I would love to go to some other provider, but I can't. And no, satellite providers are not a viable option.
digitalintent 1 year ago 2
Fuck the FCC its about controll because they are losing the truth is getting out and the Gov is not liking it, and Al gore hope ur head explodes dick head.
nas4x 1 year ago
Obama internet 'kill switch' proposed: by Joe Lieberman!
tooltalk 1 year ago
Jesus is there anything NOT UNDER REGULATION left????????!?!?
sonyradio2 1 year ago
@sonyradio2 A lot of stuff. That is one reason the US almost had a full financial collapse. If people want a true free-market, then look no further than Somalia, Haiti, and the numerous other third world countries. I am not a bleeding heart liberal but it is naive to think that all regulation = bad. I also think that people who are for a total free market are also naive. A completely free market will only work when a population is well educated and informed. Sadly this is not the case in the US
digitalintent 1 year ago
@digitalintent I don't call for the complete disbanding of regulatory rules over the net but I am also not looking forward to a "Chinese style" net censorship...that is what I was alluding to...
sonyradio2 1 year ago
A real issue to think about: the level to which North American telecom users are being hosed on service fees. This is pithy by comparison.
InfernalApocalypse 1 year ago
This is bullshit. Only morons trust the market for anything!
rebelliouspixels 1 year ago
@rebelliouspixels Yep, you can only rely on powerful special interest groups pointing the guns of government in the direction they see fit to get anything done in this world. Moron.
SpellboundSolution 1 year ago
What about when Verizon censored pro-choice text messages from the organization NARAL Pro-Choice America?
Verizon provides High Speed Internet DSL Internet service in areas where they provides phone service.
NewsPoliticsInfo 1 year ago
@NewsPoliticsInfo Text messages are meant to be a person to person communication, if you mass send out spam to phones, that is a big deal expecially in that anyone without a plan would have to pay for it (as most EVDO uses know if some dolt has their number and sends txts to the datacards SMS number, they will never know they are getting them until a bill arrives).
Are you locked to Verizon as a provider? do you have no other choices in cell phone providers?
jkessler410 1 year ago
Once FCC takes over the internet they will be under political pressure from concerned soccer moms to ban porn. And BOOM! no internet porn cause future wannabe president need something to run on. Bit Torrent? Got to ban it, since it help terrorists and what not.
What about those pesky foreign sites that take away traffic from good ole' American mom & pop sites? Politicians will protect unionized websites by slowing connection to foreign sites. And everybody will cheer them on.
saper321 1 year ago
Net Neutrality should be a local issue, not federal. I have ONE choice for my Cable provider, so essentially Knology has a monopoly on my house. In most cities you only have one or two choices for high speed cable internet (all other types suck). The cable generally requires permits and agreements from the local government to run the main trunks, therefore a good city government could say no permits unless the lines are unrestricted (or only blocked agreed upon ports).
scrappmutt2 1 year ago
Indeed guys, lets switch control of the internets from competitive companies to a giant government monopoly. Great idea.
ComradeLibertarian 1 year ago
@ComradeLibertarian
Hey retard! We have always had net neutrality. Corporations want to take it away. It is going to open up censorship on the internet. Neutrality standards are black and white. Their is no room for the FCC to get away with anything. Either all internet traffic is being treated equally or it is not.
Scientialist 1 year ago
@ComradeLibertarian
yeah dude. NN has always been inplace. it just means that private interests cant determine the info you want to look at and the rate it is delivered to you. government regulation would just ensure that doesnt change.
the government controls speed limits too, maybe those should be based on what company you buy your car from...
knowledgethief 1 year ago 2
Man, Mallory is looking rough these days.
twisteddigit 1 year ago
This video sucks first pearl jam is the example. At&t blocked 4chan, Comcast was caught throttling bittorent, that's already occurred in the US, plus the same companies are blocking services like Skype in others countries like Canada and Egypt. Do some research! What the Last Mile is lobbying for is they want to turn internet into cable TV where you pay extra to access Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Skype. Worst of all,most markets have monopolies, so there is just one ISP for Cable or DSL
neoteny01 1 year ago
@neoteny01
Except the At&t incident with 4chan was accidental. Even moot said so.
ndes0532 1 year ago
What the hell happened to Mallory?
muddywood 1 year ago
this video is full of lies. comcast definitely has meddled with bittorrent traffic. verizon definitely alters dns to redirect bad addresses to their search engine. on the other hand all the examples this guys cites ARE theoretical. IF the FCC decides to go rogue and block stuff it doesn't like and congress, the president, and the supreme court decides to go along for the ride then we have a problem. Well no kidding sherlock if they did that net neutrality would be the least of our problems.
conservobot 1 year ago
I don't trust FCC. Too much power in too few hands. Instead of consolidating power lets spread it around.
saper321 1 year ago
FUCK al gore FUCK the global warming bullshit
someone punch that fat fuck in the face.
chan0chap 1 year ago
The person forgot to mention Comcasts proposed acquisition of NBC. If this does happen then Comcast will have a reason to filter content form competing companies such as FOX and ABC.
Inmate527 1 year ago
Regulations can keep us from having serious problems in the future. Im sorry but in corporation we trust is not something I believe in. Corporations suck and so does the government. The idea has to be to keep either of them from screwing up our lives! On this issue, at least, that means having someone creating a set of rules that keep the ISPs from playing favorites.
yojimbo1981 1 year ago
Mike, that is kind of a stupid position honestly. Should we wait till there are traffic accidents to put in stop signs as well? How about FDA inspectors, should we lose em because no one has died recently from a burger? As far as the "market working" goes, the US is 22nd in broadband proliferation... It isnt that we shouldnt do anything it is that we shouldnt do the wrong thing. Meaning: we shouldnt create regulations that make the situation worse.
yojimbo1981 1 year ago
Comment removed
tooltalk 1 year ago
@yojimbo1981: your analogy is akin to asking whether we should wait until Iran / Iraq develop their own nuclear weapons, or strike'em now? No, I believe US is about 11th and if you look at the top countries like South Korea, Japan, Singapore, they are densely populated countries with somewhat more competent bureaucracy (in that they weren't trying to regulate or capitalize on it by taxing it).
There are already signs that the gov't wants more than neutrality(google EFF Net neutrality)
tooltalk 1 year ago
Tooltalk
your analogy is akin to asking whether we should wait until Iran / Iraq develop their own nuclear weapons, or strike'em now?
Attacking a country is not the same as putting restrictions on corporations. If you are trying to say ALL preemptive action is bad? Then Im sorry, but you are wrong.
Tooltalk No, I believe US is about 11th
There are actually a lot of different reports about this and most place America between 10 and 20. At least one ranks the US 22nd. Call me a pessimist
yojimbo1981 1 year ago
@yojmibo1981; that's exactly my point. People dying of traffic accidents or from food poisoning (or wars) are fallacious analogies - they are much different than regulating the net in the name of "free-speech".
Why do you feel that US has to be in the top? Firstly, there are a lot of reasons why other countries are better in terms of broadband deployment (eg, geography, culture), but it's most certaintly not b/c telecomm/calbe providers are less regulated here.
tooltalk 1 year ago
Comment removed
yojimbo1981 1 year ago
So the issue is scale? Hyperbole... Little pedantic for you tube don't you think?
While the analogy might have been inflated, the point of it was not. Heres a better one then: If youre in a car that is overheating do you pull over and fix it or do you let the engine catch on fire?
There, does that fit within the proper elements of scale of consequence for you. Or, am I now understating the consequence? Please grandmaster of all things fallacious let me know
yojimbo1981 1 year ago
I am not advocating for regulations on what ISPs charge or something. I simply dont want them, or the government, messing with what is on the net and how that information is treated. I want the government to keep corporations from doing this. I know, they arent doing it, YET! Its naive to believe that if corporations are left to their own devises that they will not, eventually, attempt to exert influence on the net. The net is THE most important form of communication in existence.
yojimbo1981 1 year ago
@yojimbo1981: again, you are still missing the underlying point here. Corporations can be informally regulated by market forces (ie, changing technology, consumer preferences, competition) - that's why early competition to the internet CompuServe, Prodigy, AOL are no longer in business. The gov't regulations however are rigid, politically motivated and more often than not written by special interests - that's precisely why telecomm/cables are known for their regional monopolies than competition.
tooltalk 1 year ago
Your argument is, fundamentally, that the market represents the will of the people more accurately and effectively than the government, as the government is corrupt. Well no, the market represents the will of MONEY. The internet does not conform to the supply and demand models you imagine anyway, its not a tangible product. You pay for ACCESS, consumer impact is minimal. Also, why is the government corrupt? Because the very same cooperate powers whos eager hands you want to leave the net in.
yojimbo1981 1 year ago
@yojimbo1981 :ok, the problem here is that you fail to grasp the basic understanding of free-market vs. managed economy. Without being too pedantic, your arguments are based on logical fallacies, strawman, red herring, bifurcation to name a few.
The difference in its simplest form, as Hayek explains it, who's doing the planning - is it individuals doing it basing it on their needs, finance, priorities or some central bureaucrat, liberal elites, professional reformers planning it for everyone el
tooltalk 1 year ago
@yojimbo1981: else on their superficial observation. As L Summers once said, u need to understand that "the invisible hand is more powerful than unhidden hand. Things happen in well-organized efforts without direction controls, or plans" by some central authority.
Your circular logic is also making me dizzy. Your arguments on money, intangible (hello, ever heard service economy?) economic model are nonsensical red herrings, strawmans. Like I said before, the gov't regulations are dangerous,
tooltalk 1 year ago
@yojimbo1981 : b/c they are short-sighted, rigid, political-motivated*, and often influenced by unscrupulous characters who pretends to have "the solutions".
Likewise, the best policy the gov't ever created was back in the 90's when it opened the NSFnet allowing the use beyond military & academia and gradually relinquished/delegated the control. It's important to know your limit ad when to take a step back.
tooltalk 1 year ago
Comment removed
yojimbo1981 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The point is not underlying, it is your opinion (pedantic, sucks doesnt it?). An opinion, rather obviously, I dont agree with. The market just dictates that there will be a reaction by industry powers. That that reaction will have anything to do with what consumers want is not a given. The industry will react yes, but it might just be about handling consumer concerns. I dont want freedom of speech or expression monetized as a cost benefit analysis on some spread sheet.
yojimbo1981 1 year ago
Comment removed
tooltalk 1 year ago
Tooltalk
There are already signs that the gov't wants more than neutrality(google EFF Net neutrality)
Im sure there are signs that people within the government want more than they should have. We shouldnt let them have it. It is after all our government
yojimbo1981 1 year ago
Anyone else find it hilarious that Moby was practically in tears?
Anyway, "free" Australia is already moving toward more regulation and the net service there is already more expensive when compared to the US. I look at places like China where even benign facebook is blocked and it scares the hell out of me. Not all ISPs are created equal, some are simply better, but in my travels only governments block content, and block it they do. Never let the vampire in.
kev3d 1 year ago
Why not just compete against each others views and products instead of trying to censor your opponents? May the best man win sort of thing. That's what real capitalism is all about.
theboombody 1 year ago
stuff happens. you can't control everything, so accept it already.
brokenscythe 1 year ago
A thoroughly unserious treatment of the topic. How about a discussion about how many choices most residents have in high speed internet providers? How about a discussion about how Comcast tried to block Bit Torrent?
Try again, Reason. You blew it on this one.
samablog 1 year ago
@samablog; I think we've been discussing that all along. The telecomm/cable industries are already heavily regulated - the gov't at federal & local level control every from their contents, prices they are allowed to charge for installation, settop box, monthly fees, how many providers are allowed in your region, etc. So no wonder there isn't enough competition. As for Comcast blocking Bittorrent, if you don't like it, move to another provider.
tooltalk 1 year ago
Switch to another provider?!?!? What other provider? Isn't the whole point here that Comcast & Time Warner have monopolies nearly everywhere they operate?
samablog 1 year ago
Don't forget the typical conservobot tactic is to setup the current situation as a "free market" system when in fact it's an artificial and rigged monopoly that has nothing to do with consumer choice. When did any consumer decide that at&t should provide their phone system and comcast covers their cable TV?
conservobot 1 year ago
We don't need more control.
skunkedmisfit 1 year ago
reason tv <3
Anyone else just realize how lame pearl jam's become?
merkabaradio 1 year ago
why does this video keep reappearing in my subscriptions list? this is the 2nd time.
whoo689 1 year ago
Comcast was ok editing a performance that they were creating and broadcasting.
thinkchip 1 year ago
Using a website could be looked at as equal to a telephone conversation between two people. We would be horrified if a phone company we paid for phone service messed with our phone conversations with ads or worse service for some callers.
thinkchip 1 year ago
The FCC's power grab over the net is about to go down in flames when they lose the DC court case. This administration needs to keep their commie hands off the internet.
zepper72 1 year ago
Can anyone name a known computer scientist/engineer/technologist that is on the record against net neutrality? it seems to me the arguments are mired down by people who don't really understand the technology and either have a pro-government or pro-business stance on the subject. What technically are the situations when net neutrality is not beneficial to those that use the internet?
xxxxxxxwwxxxxxxx 1 year ago
@xxxx*xxxx: can you name one who is not politically connected?
You don't sound like a tech savvy nerd, nor are you old enough to understand things like Unix or Cisco routers have evolved over the years. No, this is not a technical problem as much as it is a political power -grabbing by those who want "control".
tooltalk 1 year ago
i appreciate your assumptions. not sure of your reasoning but.. Here is a tech argument i took from a proper nerd thread on the subject, "i would say that the law should recognize an ISPs right to QoS bandwidth in order to ensure egalatarian and equal treatment of all customers. but it should be at the bandwidth level, not targeting individual services." taken from the defcon forums. I'm sure idiots in both parties want "control" it is why I asked the tech question.
xxxxxxxwwxxxxxxx 1 year ago
@xxwwxx: no, my reasoning is that there has never been egalitarian / equal treatment in the networking business. If you want better, faster, consistent service (QoS), you pay more for it. When you subscribe to cable service, you are at most entitled to 10mbs downstream with fractional upstream shared by a whole bunch of people. That's why some folks buy dedicated T1 ($500/month in some places) despite its cost. There's nothing unusual about this arrangement
tooltalk 1 year ago
My point of the defcon thread is that you have people on both sides of the political divide arguing the technical points of net neutrality rather than making diminutive points for a chosen political perspective. There was a time in the network business of equal treatment but this is before network hardware had QoS/SPI/DPI/etc and before shared xDSL/cable access. Before that you used a B channel (modem), BRI-ISDN, or a T service. Routers just routed. BGP/OSPF etc. This is the pre '95 internet.
xxxxxxxwwxxxxxxx 1 year ago
@xxxwwxxx: given the libertarian / anti-establishment inclination of Defcon crowds, I'm surprised that you express such view.
Unfortunately, the problem is more of a political problem than a technical one. Many of you are very naive in assuming that the gov't is just going to enforce network neutrality and nothing more - this can't be further from the truth (google: eff & "net neutrality"). As for you ATT & Skype example, there's nothing stopping me from moving away from ATT b/c of my disliking
tooltalk 1 year ago
@xxwwxx: of their restrictive services - if they make bad business decisions, they lose business. As for those whining about having access to 1 ISP/cable providers, it's no surprise that telecomm/cable are some of the most regulated industries in America - the gov't regulates everything from how much they can charge their settop-box, to where they can set up poles, special channels for public, ed, gov etc . We are stuck with fewer choices we have and monopolies precisely b/c the gov't dictates
tooltalk 1 year ago
@xxwwxx: how they are run. Then politicians who make such legislations are bought by the very same corporations they purported to control. You can settle your differences with corporations in a free-market, but when the gov't's is involved, their misguided intervention is permanent.
Technology is only relevant in a sense that the market force along with advancement in technology would ameliorate these issues (more than likely, there won't be one single answer, but many different ones) in free-
tooltalk 1 year ago
@xxwwxx: the threat you are referring to is more of a political discussion - whether consumers are entitled to certain guaranteed services or whether it should be defined by regulation.
As I said in my previous posts, even between ISP's, they often pay more to get direct, unrestricted dedicated peering connections for their customers (their other alternative being slower public access shared by many). And it should be their business decision to offer services (T1, dialups) with limited services
tooltalk 1 year ago
I don't blame AT&T for taking out political comments. They might lose customers. That was a catchy tune, though.
"George Bush find yourself another home~~~~"
j95lee 1 year ago
Great job picking the least impressive advocates of net neutrality.. So I get to pick the mascot for Reason TV...and I pick... let's see.... Gary Busey!
How about you interview Larry Lessig, Chris Anderson, Linus Torvalds, or about a thousand other big name net technologists.
CityzenJane 1 year ago
there's no fighting this really
if the NWO wants net neutrality it gets net neutrality
this is about them regulating your life
China and Russia are not part of the NWO (US, EU, Isreal and a bunch of other countries)
elitebanktyranny 1 year ago
The internet is such that anyone trying this BS will get slammed by net pressures... which are much stronger than the FCC. Screw them, we don't need "net neutrality" - we can handle it on our own terms, as we always have.
juice797 1 year ago 2
I don't put faith in the free market. It works in some spheres, like prices of food, clothing, commodities. But we must remember that it is an economic system, not a social system, and not a political system. The free market is what it is, you shouldn't apply it outside economics.
I am skeptical of this video because the arguments for net neutrality make sense. The only high speed internet I can get is Comcast. If Comcast blocked websites, I wouldn't have that free market to resort to.
Dirge987 1 year ago
Dirge987: your problem isn't that free-market is limiting your choices, but that your local politicians chose to regulate who can provide services in your area.
tooltalk 1 year ago
@tooltalk
That is a sound argument, but I, nor you knows exactly where there is little competition in my area. It could be from government regulation, but who really knows the case.
The argument against net neut. have been "government regulation is bad", but I disagree. Some regulation is needed in respect to the law, and government should step in when businesses break the law.
If an ISP decides to limit access to websites, then it is a deliberate attempt to block free speech.
Dirge987 1 year ago
@dirge987: (1) telecomm/cable are some of the most regulated industries in US. They already control prices (of your set top box, installation fee, to monthly subscription, etc), contents, licensing, # of public channels etc at both federal / local level.
(2) As said in other posts, google EFF & Net Neutrality
(3) Your free speech is already protected by the Constitution. You have issues with free-speech, take'em to court.
tooltalk 1 year ago
tooltalk,
I am skeptical of anything a liberal, libertarian, or conservative has to say, because some of the time, they have their interests to pursue.
I like the concept of net neutrality, but after reading what the EFF had to say, I have to disagree to it if the act does put the FCC in control because their nature is to block free speech. The FCC would do more harm than good. I might not trust big business, but I trust the FCC less.
tooltalk, thank you for your insight and your perspective.
Dirge987 1 year ago
Dude you're against it because Al Gore and Moby are for it? Brilliant!
Dude Corporate interests have already stifled free market growth of the Internet. We are FAR behind most other developed nations and WE invented it! And Yes an ISP HAS tried to squash free speech on a cell network that was deemed not in their corporate interests.
L8nitedave 1 year ago
really that's what you got? 4:26 long video and rail on that and some hypothetical with no source? infringements do exist but they pale in comparison to the millions of people on the internet. You have a choice between multiple dsl providers, satellite, cable and dial up internet. HOW would anyone block internet access? just switch to another provider and tell all your friends. the market works most of the time if you bother to use it properly
yytrert 1 year ago
You don't know what Net Neutrality is do you?
L8nitedave 1 year ago
..you don't know how to respond to something you disagree with do you?
yytrert 1 year ago
WE HATE CENSORSHIP UNLESS IT IS THE FREE MARKET WHO IS DOING IT - A Libertarian
Joe402 1 year ago
it's just no one is fucking retarded and paranoid as you are, that's like saying businesses competing for your money somehow has a motive to do you disservice. nobody likes censorship but the argument is once a monolithic entity resides control and authority over something they can't be held accountable for it would open the door for abuse. there has been many examples where government started something out of good intent that later mutated to something else. just think a little, not hard.
spyletu 1 year ago
Net neutrality means ISPs can't fuck you over. Do you want to live in a world where the internet is sold like cable/satellite packages? Oh wait yeah of course you would.
Joe402 1 year ago
@Joe402 Yeah man, government controlled internet?
Fuck yeah, it went so well for the Chinese and all.
I mean, it's good to have government blocks on looking up things like "civil liberties", "human rights", and "freedom of speech". Who the hell needs to be reading about those things.
MaverickWhig 1 year ago 4
@Joe402
As opposed to having the government arbitrary censors everything they disagree with? Hell yes.
And apparantly