Posted on 11/23/2010 12:24:07 PM PST by OldDeckHand
Al Gore says that legislation ensuring "net neutrality" is "needed for the revitalization of American democracy."
Techno-vegan Moby says without it, the "egalitarian" Internet would disappear.
Even Mallory from Family Ties, Justine Bateman, thinks "the freedom to access the site of any organization from Planned Parenthood to the Christian Coalition is going to end."
But just what the hell is net neutrality—and is all that is good and holy about the Internet really imperiled if legislation guaranteeing it isn't passed?
Network neutrality is necessary, say its supporters, to make certain that all data on the Internet is treated equally and to protect users from information discrimination on the part of Internet service providers who will slow down or even block access to certain sites.
Reason.tv's Michael C. Moynihan takes a skeptical look at the growing push for net neutrality legislation and asks Peter Suderman, a Reason associate editor who is closely following proposals on the topic, why Moby and Mallory want the Federal Communication Commission, of all agencies, to regulate the Internet.
Approximately 4 minutes. Written by Moynihan. Shot and edited by Dan Hayes and Meredith Bragg.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
WHAT? Is that the Fairness Doctrine for the internet? Or Worse, a VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF OUR CONSTITUTION....put the buzzheads out of office and Impeach them.
in effect they will be neither Neutral nor Fair, it will be Carte Blanche for the left to propagandize
Let’s be clear: “net neutrality” is a Trojan Horse intended to allow the government to gain control of the internet; both content and access. Don’t be fooled for a nanosecond it’s anything else, not even when has-been actresses are pushing it and coyly reference both left and right wing organizations in their promotions. It’s another government con. Oppose it.
I suppose if Comcast starts screwing around with your access to Hulu you could always dump them and switch to Verizon, but if the Gubbermint gets control of your access to FR there is no turning back.
I feel the exact same way about health insurance. You don't like you health insurer, change insurers. Your insurance is provided by your employer and you don't like your insurance, change employers.
But, when the fedgov takes over insurance, who are you going to change to when it sucks?
The government isn’t supposed to get involved in something it created?
The internet today is a lot different, more complex, more distributed and virtually independent of government involvement. Sure, the technology itself has its genesis in government programs. DARPA comes to mind. But, so do a lot of emerging technologies.
Kidney dialysis came directly from the space program. Do you want the government controlling kidney dialysis.
No. Net neutrality means your ISP being neutral towards content, not the content being neutral. Net neutrality is the opposite of fairness doctrine because it would mean the network cannot care about the content at all, and thus no decision as to the content's "neutrality" can be made.
Plus, net neutrality is targeted at ISPs. Fairness doctrine would be targeted at the content producers.
That makes ZERO sense at all to me?????
The federal government only gave up its full, direct control over the actual Internet in the 90s. The National Science Foundation made the rules that everybody lived by before then. ICANN, which basically manages the Internet, is still doing that under contract from the Department of Commerce. The federal government still retains control over the root DNS for the Internet.
It's not historical. It's here and now.
Netbooks have roaming ISP numbers with certain carriers, so it makes no sense that net neutrality would involve the ISP number??? There are Hide ISP number programs, so it has to be something that could invade your privacy, and violate your first amendment rights, if it gives government any knowledge of who you really are, without your approval.
Our right to privacy is violated, and the 4th Amendment of illegal search and seizure, because it gives access to information that comes into our computer at home, and of our ability to surf the web without invasion into our lives AND without a warrant. If we have NOT committed any crime, this violates our Constitutional Rights, both 1st Amendment and 4th Amendment.
NO, NO, NO.
If you cannot discriminate based on content, then how is it possible to enforce a policy that the content itself must have some perceived political neutrality? Fairness doctrine from an ISP perspective requires a non-neutral network in order to function.
Whatever you’re talking about, it has nothing to do with net neutrality, which is historically the way the Internet has operated. Unless you are covered by certain ISPs, you are currently using the Internet under net neutrality.
Let’s get rid of Obama and the Democrats first, and then start turning off the left mouthpieces with ‘Net Neutrality’. Let’s see how they like their Marxist propaganda turned on mute!
Just as important MALLORY! WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO YOU?
I thought Mallory had the perfect explanation.
Thanks.
BTW, Mr. FCC, I prefer Diet Coke not Pepsi and I want it now, not when you deem I can, should or might have it.
I was thinking the same thing.
Whooooooo!!!!!!!
I had a crush on her when I was younger but zowie!
Game Over!!!
You notice, thet’re not concerned with porn sites. Several yrs. ago I read that 6 out of the top 10 sites were devoted to porn. I doubt if it’s any different now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.