http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=f34e9fb0-01d5-4603-8026-698992e8913c&ContentType_id=77eb43da-aa94-497d-a73f-5c951ff72372&Group_id=505cc3fa-a767-40f4-8ac2-4b8326b44e94

Seriously, no one can defend stupidity or malevolence of this magnitude. They think Net Neutrality is a regulation placed on the internet when it clearly is not. Net Neutrality is the idea that the internet is best as it has been, open and without ISPs being able to discriminate against data based upon who they like or get paid more from. That anyone disagrees with it shows that they either have a very fundamental misunderstanding of how the internet works or they are likely in bed with companies who stand to profit from being able to decide what traffic is more readily available/faster on the networks.

Techno-geeks disagree, as this column from C-Net explains.

I tend to agree with them. The FCC made a power play here and little more.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-20026326-94.html

why anyone would be against net neutrality is beyond me

They're against government claiming jurisdiction when it has none.

Writerbuckeye;736977 wrote:They're against government claiming jurisdiction when it has none.

you've heard of the commerce clause right?

Writer....you're wrong on this one brother

Here's the problem with this whole topic.

As long as ISPs remain private companies, the companies ultimately have the right to permitting the information they see fit through their service. Thus far, few cases of this data discrimination have taken place. I would personally despise any ISP that decided to do this if it affected me.

However, suppose the U. S. government was to provide this kind of service ... I would then completely be in support of disallowing such a discrimination. No longer being privately owned, and being a monopoly of sorts, discrimination would be a royal pain.

Ultimately, I think that the ends of net neutrality are good. I'm not yet convinced that these means are warranted, though, so I have to reserve my conclusion until later.

Ty Webb;736995 wrote:Writer....you're wrong on this one brother

I don't think so. I haven't seen evidence of anything egregious that would prompt creating this regulatory system. If it's needed because we're seeing abuse, then yes, but from all I've read that hasn't been the case.

If ISPs start doing power plays and blocking websites, etc., don't you think it's going to become a HUGE story...especially on the Internet (ISPs can't block everything)? And don't you expect the backlash would be just as huge by their customers?

The Internet has been a very nice example of free enterprise in action since it came into being, and I'd hate to see all kinds of regulations start to creep in that take away the potential it has for innovation and job creation.

I just don't see the necessity for these rules -- yet.

I'm still waiting for the gratuitous Al Gore slam.

Okay...he's a fat pig who is perpetrating a huge fraud on the world and getting fatter because of it.

Will that do?

Writerbuckeye;737025 wrote:I don't think so. I haven't seen evidence of anything egregious that would prompt creating this regulatory system. If it's needed because we're seeing abuse, then yes, but from all I've read that hasn't been the case.

If ISPs start doing power plays and blocking websites, etc., don't you think it's going to become a HUGE story...especially on the Internet (ISPs can't block everything)? And don't you expect the backlash would be just as huge by their customers?

The Internet has been a very nice example of free enterprise in action since it came into being, and I'd hate to see all kinds of regulations start to creep in that take away the potential it has for innovation and job creation.

I just don't see the necessity for these rules -- yet.

I take it you're against preemptive military strikes, then.

Writerbuckeye;736832 wrote:Techno-geeks disagree, as this column from C-Net explains.

I tend to agree with them. The FCC made a power play here and little more.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-20026326-94.html

"The best hope for increased competition is wireless broadband. That's why it's so important for the FCC to get serious about spectrum reform."

That's a quote from the guy who wrote that article. While it is important for the FCC to keep/get the spectrums and rules for them making sense the fact that the dude has given up on any sort of real competition in the traditional broadband realm tells a lot.

derek bomar;736979 wrote:you've heard of the commerce clause right?

Federal Policy 001: When all else fails, invoke the Commerce Clause.

stlouiedipalma;737208 wrote:I'm still waiting for the gratuitous Al Gore slam.

Writerbuckeye;737221 wrote:Okay...he's a fat pig who is perpetrating a huge fraud on the world and getting fatter because of it.

And I'm sure Al would love to see the Feds over-regulate the Internet so he can get even fatter. After all he did invent it.

O-Trap;737320 wrote:

You mean Al Gore is the missing link? This guy's amazing! Proof positive Darwin was right!