FCC to Vote on Net Neutrality Regulations TOMORROW

http://bytestyle.tv/node/174

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• net neutrality
• internet
• censor
• traffic shaping
• ISP
• Comcast
• AT&T
• technology
• news
• politics
• FCC

[zeugmatis]

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

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

[eurohim]

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

[me2ontube]

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

[MerlinYoda]

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

[rogerdodgeraviation]

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

[DigiLusionist]

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

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

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

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

[picklebarrels]

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

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

Being ignorant is not an argument.

[zeugmatis]

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

You should be *for* this.

[shinzoamx]

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

[shinzoamx]

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

[picklebarrels]

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

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

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

[zeugmatis]

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

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