——————It’s an industry agreement that they’re putting into law.—————
Which is yet another reason why people know that net neutrality is censorship.
Google is out there censoring websites.
——————As far as Heritage goes, once the telco astroturfs and lobbyists turned what was an issue of freedom into a conservative/liberal issue, then of course the likes of Heritage will jump on board on the side of conservatives. ——————
LOL! Did you even read what’s being posted?
Heritage actually reads the bills. And they quoted from them.
You should try it some time. Then perhaps you’d know how targeted your free speech is online.
And the astroturf groups didn’t make it a lib/con issue. The government as well as the soros funded groups did by usurping it.
The net neutrality you seek hasn’t existed for a very long time. The current net neutrality under proposal *IS* the fairness doctrine for the internet.
And as long as it remains defeated, limited government is the winner.
At this level it is a battle between content providers and consumer ISPs. It appears they've come to an agreement, where basically the content providers win by keeping the status quo. On the other hand, the leftist dreamers who wanted to forbid even necessary traffic management, which would have been a huge burden for the telcos, have lost.
You should try it some time. Then perhaps you’d know how targeted your free speech is online.
I read all bills I post about, with the obvious exception of the huge ones that are pretty much impossible to find the time to read unless that's your job. This one isn't even a bill yet, and I found it despite Heritage's link being broken.
The net neutrality you seek hasn’t existed for a very long time.
With a few notable exceptions, net neutrality still exists.
The current net neutrality under proposal *IS* the fairness doctrine for the internet.
These are the guts. It says ISPs:
“(1) shall not block lawful content, applications, or services, or prohibit the use of non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management;Do you honestly see anything about fairness doctrine in there? I see: don't block, don't discriminate, inform customers. Do you see a "give equal bandwidth to differing opinions?" Do you see anything at all regarding content producers, the ones who would be the target of a fairness doctrine?“(2) shall not unjustly or unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful traffic over a consumer’s wireline broadband Internet access service. For purposes of this subparagraph, reasonable network management practices shall not be construed to be unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory.
“(3) shall disclose accurate and relevant information in plain language regarding the price, performance, and network management practices of its wireline broadband Internet access services sufficient for consumers to make informed choices regarding use of such services and for content, application, service, and device providers to develop and market new Internet offerings. The Commission shall not require public disclosure of competitively sensitive information or information that could compromise network security or undermine the efficacy of reasonable network management practices]. In promulgating rules implementing this subparagraph, the Commission shall at minimum require providers to display or provide links to the required information on an Internet website and to update such information in a timely fashion to reflect material changes in the information subject to this paragraph