[Halfmanhalfamazing]

Phil Kerpen and a few others are keeping this real by not letting the whole SOPA thing diffuse the danger of net neutrality.

SOPA is dangerous, no doubt. But Net Neutrality is equally as dangerous, considering that it is based in marxism. Why fight only one when you can fight both?

[isthisnickcool]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIuYgIvKsc&feature=related

[ari-freedom]

Yup, that’s what happens when you listen to what companies want instead of following free market principles.

[ShadowAce]

[ShadowAce]

[Psycho_Bunny]

The weird thing about “net neutrality” is that the Internet became what it is today purely on the back of net neutrality.

If you like the Internet now, you like net neutrality.

[for-q-clinton]

Net Neutrality is a tough one for me to decide. I keep going back and forth.

If you read this article it sounds like it’s backing the ISP side wanting to allow ISPs to control the Internet.

I do like the idea that the Internet is completely open. But concede the point that the company that you pay to run your Internet should be able to do what it wants...if that means limiting bandwidth to sites or even blocking them—hey you get what you pay for.

But then with the huge cost to entry into this market it would quickly be a “let’s share the pie” between the big operators and no one would sell the consumers what they want. As soon as someone tried the big ISPs would run them out of business super quick.

This is a tough one.

[Born to Conserve]

Choose:
“free market” and “monopoly”,

or

“net neutral” and “regulation”.

You may not mix and match. Tough choice.

[af_vet_rr]

The most dangerous thing we face outside of SOPA/PIPA is the monopolies that have been created in this country by the providers like Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, Verizon, etc. and those monopolies tie directly into net neutrality.

We need to force our cities and states to stop these local monopolies. They might have been okay back in 1982, but they aren't now.