Net neutrality: Necessary or necessary evil?

The debate about what net neutrality really means is heating up. While the U.S. Government says it wants to make sure that Internet providers treat all web traffic equally, companies such as AT&T and Comcast believe that the feds should stay out of their business. The question becomes how much control should the government have over Internet commerce and most importantly, how might these new rules affect Internet users all over the world? RT's Dina Gusovsky moderates this debate between Berin Szoka from the Progress and Freedom Foundation and Art Brodsky from Public Knowledge.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Berin Szoka
• Art Brodsky
• Public Knowledge
• net neutrality
• phone providers
• internet Google
• Amazon.com
• AT&T
• Comcast
• U.S. government
• FCC
• commerce
• Dina Gusovsky
• Internet freedom
• privacy
• cyber space
• Genachowski
• web traffic
• Silicon Valley
• wireless carriers
• Chris Guttman-McCabe
• Democrats
• Republicans.

[silversobe]

No matter what happens the internet must remain free from government and corporate control.

Censorship is shit

[officialusa]

Net neutrality is an attempt to turn control of private networks over to the FCC.

It nothing less than an attempt to consolidate and end one of the very few remaining sources or real news.

[TheShotokanWarrior]

@SeeProfileForDetails how the fuck can your ISP "Slow down certain sites?" It has to do with the type of internet search engine you're using. the job of ISP is to simply supply with the Internet/broadbands. now if searches could be blocked or shown or filtered through "Broadband networking"... which can't be done.

[TheShotokanWarrior]

4:15 thanks... I want to choose the right kind of products from the broad band I use where I search through the browsers to get the right kinds of products from the internet which is provided by my ISP THAT which has a good home network with strict password system!!!.

[capitalflush]

KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE INTERNET!!!!!

[SeeProfileForDetails]

Well let's say comcast slows down certain sites. In a free market people will simply unsubscribe from Comcast and go to another provider in the free market who allows them to do what they want to do. That's what having choices is all about in a free market. You think that people are going to stick with a company that blocks them from doing what they want to do? another corporation will open up and provide better service to the customers, and comcast would go broke. What's the problem? Eff sakes.

[snakeboy742]

hmmmmm stange how it comes after the wikileaks being attacked hmmmmm

i see this bullshit as them trying to beat down the internet

[allendupras]

@silversobe i think the web censorship bill just passed though :(

[FreiheitKampfer]

Neither. Net Neutrality is a terrible idea. I stand with the Electronic Frontier Foundation ('The ACLU of the Net'). Keep government off our grid.

[chingon711]

shut down the FCC and allow the people to decide what they want to watch.

[teddybruscie]

This is getting stupid. I get what both of them is saying and they are agreeing on the same damn thing. Corporations shouldnt do what the FCC thinks they might do in the future.

I dont see how this is a slippery slope for the FCC to control the Internet? This is simple math. It says nothing about expanding power or having the power to do anything else. It just says you cant do one thing and one thing only. Now if they tried to do something else then you can shoot that down but this isnt bad.