I hope this is good news........

[Hgunner]

May keep the net open and free for a while longer.....

Court: FCC has no power to regulate Net neutrality | Politics and Law - CNET News

Edited April 6, 2010 by Hgunner

[helxis]

actually it does the exact opposite.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The net will stay freer and more open if "Net Neutrality" does not pass. It is close up on the messiah's agenda, also. Another misnomer from the communists.

[helxis]

nope.

[Mark@Sea]

"Net neutrality" would allow the government to dictate how an isp manages it's network - in part by choosing what types of traffic. How is allowing the government to choose content going to make the net more free? Possibly you have an insight that escapes me.

[9teeneleven]

Wow Mark, really? The government mandate is simply that all traffic be treated equally. This situation is not unlike the American industrial revolution. There is so much power consolidated into the hands of VERY few companies that a free market environment simply doesn't exist. What government regulation does is simply ensure that these few companies can't abuse the massive amounts of power that they hold. This "any government is bad government attitude" is myopic. The government is not controlling anything here except to ensure that all net traffic be treated equal. Otherwise very few corporations control the majority of the information flow in our democracy. Democracies are utterly dependent on the free flow of information and ideas. This is simply a case of our government protecting our democracy from corporate interests. Say for example that comcast is anti-gun. Next time you log into this site from home, it loads so slowly that it essentially won't load. How about if it is blocked altogether? This is not an unrealistic scenario. What these companies are fighting for is to be able to put economic restrictions on the flow of information over the net. It also creates significant monopolistic opportunities. Comcast also provides TV content and phone services. I imagine the first content they will block or slow down will be video and VOIP related. News will be next. You will be able to access news only from sponsored sites. Forget the vibrant and often subversive weblog communities. The net is a public utility and should be protected as such.

This issue is not unlike the healthcare issue. When so much power becomes consolidated into the hands of so few, there is simply little to no incentive to offer the best product possible to the consumer, thus removing the one check on the profit motive that the free market has. The only incentive is to make the most money possible.

Since the supreme court in its infinite wisdom has decided that corporations are now entitled to the same first amendment privileges as American citizens, I would expect these attacks on our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to only worsen, and to do so rapidly and dramatically.

[mikegideon]

actually it does the exact opposite.

Correct

[mikegideon]

Wow Mark, really? The government mandate is simply that all traffic be treated equally. This situation is not unlike the American industrial revolution. There is so much power consolidated into the hands of VERY few companies that a free market environment simply doesn't exist. What government regulation does is simply ensure that these few companies can't abuse the massive amounts of power that they hold. This "any government is bad government attitude" is myopic. The government is not controlling anything here except to ensure that all net traffic be treated equal. Otherwise very few corporations control the majority of the information flow in our democracy. Democracies are utterly dependent on the free flow of information and ideas. This is simply a case of our government protecting our democracy from corporate interests. Say for example that comcast is anti-gun. Next time you log into this site from home, it loads so slowly that it essentially won't load. How about if it is blocked altogether? This is not an unrealistic scenario. What these companies are fighting for is to be able to put economic restrictions on the flow of information over the net. It also creates significant monopolistic opportunities. Comcast also provides TV content and phone services. I imagine the first content they will block or slow down will be video and VOIP related. News will be next. You will be able to access news only from sponsored sites. Forget the vibrant and often subversive weblog communities. The net is a public utility and should be protected as such.

This issue is not unlike the healthcare issue. When so much power becomes consolidated into the hands of so few, there is simply little to no incentive to offer the best product possible to the consumer, thus removing the one check on the profit motive that the free market has. The only incentive is to make the most money possible.

Since the supreme court in its infinite wisdom has decided that corporations are now entitled to the same first amendment privileges as American citizens, I would expect these attacks on our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to only worsen, and to do so rapidly and dramatically.

Agree, but I'm not sure I disagree with this specific ruling. Comcast has a finite amount of bandwidth, and bit torrent streams eat a large chunk of it.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I don't like the idea of the government having control of your free speech. So it is propaganda that the FCC will potentially have

control over free speech? That's the way I understand it. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Guest HvyMtl]

Ok, this is NOT a good thing.

I will put out a few examples the "Net Neutrality" concept does. It prevents the few ISPs (internet service providers) from preventing you to view what you want, download what you want, and use the internet access you paid for in the manner you wish.

This issue stemmed from an ISP limiting band width (speed of download) to sites which allow you to download programs, movies, and large files. The FCC stated they could not limit the speeds, as all traffic must be handled equally. (Oversimplification, but basically the issue.)

So, you went to download a big program, and instead of taking an hour to download, it took 10.

So what is the big deal, you think? Well, the ISP was limiting types of access... That is the big issue.

Example of negative impact: So, you use an internet telephone service, instead of regular phone service. The service is not through your ISP, who has a competing service. The ISP slows your speeds to the service, making it ineffective. Not a really big deal, unless you want to call someone, and get intermittent connections. Not really a big deal, until you have to call 911, and you cannot, due to the speed throttling by your ISP...

Example of Negative Impact: You like to go to TNGunowners.com and the NRA's websites, and other Pro-Gun websites. The ISP owner believes gun ownership is evil. So he blocks access, by slowing bandwidth to those sites. You are now denied the ability to view Pro-Gun sites...

Example of Negative Impact: ISP owner believes CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, and other news networks, waste space on the internet. So, he blocks the sites by slowing the speed to a crawl. Preventing you from getting crucial news, and limiting access to information.

You own a website critical of the ISP, as they have blocked your access to your favorite sites. The ISP merely blocks the access to your site by slowing access to your site. So much for your 1st A rights.

You own a business on the Internet and sell software by download. The ISP has a competing product. They limit your bandwidth (effectively, speed of downloading for your customers.) You lose customers, as they cannot download your product...

This is what Net Neutrality is supposed to protect against. Extreme examples? Perhaps. But, all easily done without Net Neutrality.

[strickj]

Wow Mark, really? The government mandate is simply that all traffic be treated equally. This situation is not unlike the American industrial revolution. There is so much power consolidated into the hands of VERY few companies that a free market environment simply doesn't exist. What government regulation does is simply ensure that these few companies can't abuse the massive amounts of power that they hold. This "any government is bad government attitude" is myopic. The government is not controlling anything here except to ensure that all net traffic be treated equal. Otherwise very few corporations control the majority of the information flow in our democracy. Democracies are utterly dependent on the free flow of information and ideas. This is simply a case of our government protecting our democracy from corporate interests. Say for example that comcast is anti-gun. Next time you log into this site from home, it loads so slowly that it essentially won't load. How about if it is blocked altogether? This is not an unrealistic scenario. What these companies are fighting for is to be able to put economic restrictions on the flow of information over the net. It also creates significant monopolistic opportunities. Comcast also provides TV content and phone services. I imagine the first content they will block or slow down will be video and VOIP related. News will be next. You will be able to access news only from sponsored sites. Forget the vibrant and often subversive weblog communities. The net is a public utility and should be protected as such.

This issue is not unlike the healthcare issue. When so much power becomes consolidated into the hands of so few, there is simply little to no incentive to offer the best product possible to the consumer, thus removing the one check on the profit motive that the free market has. The only incentive is to make the most money possible.

Since the supreme court in its infinite wisdom has decided that corporations are now entitled to the same first amendment privileges as American citizens, I would expect these attacks on our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to only worsen, and to do so rapidly and dramatically.

This is how I understand it.

I read about it when it first came into the news and I don't remember anything about the wording including Government control.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Why would you want the FCC to regulate the internet? You can get into the same situation the heath care bill will get us into. Who actually owns the internet? China is doing a good job with the internet. It's called censorship over there.

Because Comcast throttled bandwidth over Torrent downloading

doesn't make it a reason for Congress to enact 'Net Neutrality'.

The direction our government is going I doubt I'll be for any more regulations from any government entity. I still think the name 'Net Neutrality' is a misnomer and should be called 'Censored'.

Wait until the Congress has been hopefully sanitized in November and see how this bill looks then. What's the rush if it is so essential?

I see that fellow, Mark Lloyd, appointee at the FCC talking about

Hugo Chavez and his great control over his people and all it smells of, to me, is censorship coming. I must be paranoid.

[Guest jackdm3]

Despite hullabaloo, Internet is safe and sound Capitol Report - MarketWatch

[Guest strelcevina]

Internet is like A-bomb. it has a lot of economical and political power.

so limiting access , keeping speeds slow or overcharging so much so only some can have acces to faster speeds is risk for our freedom.

sophisticated Hackers can destroy whole U.S. economy in 1 day.

talking about when SHTF.

[Oh Shoot]

...

Because Comcast throttled bandwidth over Torrent downloading...

...

They also just are paying off on a class action suit for that, too.

Just got a notice the other day, if I wanted to jump through whatever hoops, could get $20 or something.

- OS

[Guest 6.8 AR]

So some here agree that more regulations will give you

your utopia. I don't see that the government does much

of anything right. There were plenty of laws on the books

that would keep guns out of criminal's hands, yet the

National Firearms Act of 1934,68 and FOPA1986, Great

Society, Community Reinvestment Act 1978, all huge

bills that some good stuff but ends up with a lot of bad

consequenses. I didn't mean to leave out the FDR years,

but it would take too long.

Does a law have to be added because it sounds good to

some? The Internet is better served with less government

imtevention than more. Or would you rather have the

government do everything for you?

I think society would be better served with less laws.

It would be a great day when we know we can do something

without worrying whether we are breaking a law. It will

come to that sooner than you think.

Edited April 7, 2010 by 6.8 AR
Sp

[Hgunner]

So some here agree that more regulations will give you

your utopia. I don't see that the government does much

of anything right. There were plenty of laws on the books

that would keep guns out of criminal's hands, yet the

National Firearms Act of 1934,68 and FOPA1986, Great

Society, Community Reinvestment Act 1978, all huge

bills that some good stuff but ends up with a lot of bad

consequenses. I didn't mean to leave out the FDR years,

but it would take too long.

Does a law have to be added because it sounds good to

some? The Internet is better served with less government

imtevention than more. Or would you rather have the

government do everything for you?

I think society would be better served with less laws.

It would be a great day when we know we can do something

without worrying whether we are breaking a law. It will

come to that sooner than you think.

Agreed