Oh, and shadowace........ tech ping if you want.
Further reading from the heritage foundation.(And yes, this headline says it all 100% accurately)
FCC Net Neutrality Smackdown a Win for Free Market, Limited Government
Waxman is the worst member of Congress. Who would elect him?
Waxman will be getting NOTHING and will have to like it.
We won.
Waxman should spend the next two years proposing laws to repeal old laws rather than thinking up new ones that just add more regulations.
btt
Waxman? Geez- I wish he woud do a Kennedy and save us all from his BS.
The idea of some 1’s and 0’s being more important than others doesn't make too much sense to me. And if I've paid for 15Mbps unlimited service, then everything I download better d@mn well be coming in at that speed... for anything outside of malfunctions and breakdowns would be a breach of contract to me.
That said, if companies want to offer cheaper service plans with restricted speeds for certain sites, clearly laid out *PRIOR* to any contract signing... well, that's their perogative.
Well, unless they are a monopoly (and specially if they are a municipally sanctioned monopoly). Then, since consumers are restricted from having a choice... they would then need to be mandated to have all options available at competitive prices. And if that's a bother for ‘em, then a little free market competition might change their tune.
ping per our discussion
Hey, Henry Nosehairs! YOU LOST. GET USED TO IT.
I’ll never understand why we turn something into conservative or liberal when it has nothing whatsoever to do with ideology or politics. I call them the master manipulators (astro turfers) who know that by claiming the liberals are “for” something is enough to make the conservatives “against” it, or vice versa. They can take any issue that they need public opinion on (even if its against the interests of the public) and turn it political and gain support.
In this case they pulled out “if its government regulation it must be bad card” and here we are discussing net-neutrality. Some might claim that the Bill of Rights are bad because it is effectively a government regulation too. BTW the SPLC absurdly claims those who quote the BoR are potential terrorists, but that’s a different story.
But back to the issue….. Because I strongly believe in liberty for all versus the alternative, I support basic government regulation that says to the ISPs that all traffic on the net will be treated equally (as in neutrality).
The crux of this is that big mainstream media (that once controlled everything we read or viewed) wish to stratify and control the internet for their benefit and our loss. They want tier 1 access, while average bloggers and lower level video servers are relegated to something lesser. They want the equivalent “network TV broadcasting” while everyone else gets the AM radio channel with 500 watt transmitter or a 3 watt CB depending on how much money you have. The other aspect of this is that the ISPs want profits by tiering of services. It comes down to big money and influence versus equal access.
This isn’t conservative versus liberal, it is liberty for all versus corporate dominance for a few. I prefer liberty versus being constrained and I can’t imagine anyone (liberal or conservative) who would want it any other way. If I was a media giant I’d prefer the power and profits and a public constrained to my internet profit center versus having infinite access to others.
BTW you can kiss goodbye to the free aspect (aside from ISP access) for 99% of the internet if the big media gets their wish on this, and it sounds like both Ds and Rs are in the bag.
Pardon the rambling my friend.