[AreaMan]

I agree that the President is surrounding himself with hard left people but I am confused about Net Neutrality as presented in this article.

I thought real Net Neutrality was "bits are bits," that is you can charge me for bandwidth but not discriminate on the source of the bits.
I guess an example would be a Cable provider slowing down traffic from sites that let you see their programs online without using their DVR service.

Maybe the objection is to the hijacking of Net Neutrality for their own lefty agenda and if that's the case then yes I am opposed.

[yoe]

Mark Lloyd will use this regardless of what the true meaning was, he will use this to stop all opposition to the Obama vision of America. It is a silencer of free speech. Why does Obama have so many Communists and other anti-Americans close to him? It is obvious, he truly thinks America should not be a free nation....that is one of the reasons.

[rabscuttle385]

Maybe the objection is to the hijacking of Net Neutrality for their own lefty agenda and if that's the case then yes I am opposed.

Agreed.

[haroldeveryman]

Today’s Glenn Beck’s show on Fox News network addresses Obama’s agenda concerning “Net Neutrality” .

[tbw2]

Does Net “Neutrality” give the government the ability to block servers, providers and websites?

[HiTech RedNeck]

It’s a sticky wicket.

Current internet service providers never promise that you will get content from any source on the internet as fast as the slower of your own link to the provider or the provider’s own link to the backbone. To be able to keep such a promise if the providers were forced to make it universal, they would need to make investment in equipment bandwidth that most customers would not use or would only use rarely. This would jack the price way up. I would be more in favor of full disclosure to customers of individual ISP policies on the matter. If Joe Blow Telecom is slowing down a competing feed from Jim Schmoe Telecom, Joe should be required to say so to potential and current customers. Then Tim Grow Telecom could advertise that they slow down nobody’s feed, but they also charge more for that characteristic. And customers can choose what they want.

[steve-b]

I thought real Net Neutrality was "bits are bits," that is you can charge me for bandwidth but not discriminate on the source of the bits. I guess an example would be a Cable provider slowing down traffic from sites that let you see their programs online without using their DVR service.

That's precisely what it is. This article is astroturf BS written by the real socailists: cable and telco companies who have a sweet government monopoly and want to use it to block free-market competition (exactly as your example describes).