Net neutrality is ....

Net neutrality is:

  • the right thing to do.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • an attempt by Obama to take control of the internet.

    Votes: 7 100.0%
  • Total voters
    7
Is there a lot of "no opinion" or are there not enough options or folks just don't want to say?

I just wanted to get a sense of where people around here stood on the issue partly because of some news reportage I had seen recently.
 
I just haven't been around much lately. I say it's the right thing to do.
 
The right thing to do. In fact, I'd say the lack of Net Neutrality is the blatant attempt to take control of the internet. Having providers that can filter/throttle/redirect anything they (dis)like is clearly a step toward them being able to be told to filter/redirect anything the government doesn't like.
 
Yes, one thing we need to be aware of is that ISPs are venturing into the content providing business now - or are partnering up with content providers. This means they have incentive to optimize your path to their content and to degrade your path to their competitors. They're basically trying to use Apple's abomination of a marketing scheme where they lock you into their content stores, media outlets, ad servers, etc. Lack of net neutrality would pretty much turn the net into a giant pile of steaming poop.
 
OK, well, so far on here with a quite limited sample it seems that we are unanimous that net neutrality is the way to go, however I saw a fox news clip a while back where they were trying to spin net neutrality as "government takeover of the net" and I wondered if there were many people buying that. I mean, if companies were forced by the government not to block or slow your internet packets then ... they wouldn't be able to block or slow your internet packets - oh, wicked government - oh, poor mega-corporation!!!
 
Ars covers this...

Glenn Beck's war on the FCC (and Satan worshippers)

Right-wing talker Glenn Beck took to his Fox News TV program last Monday night to deliver a rant about how President Obama has compiled something "almost like an enemies list" and how Obama is into "silencing opponents." The president's tool of choice for this censorship? Network neutrality—the principle that ISPs cannot interfere with content.

"We are dealing with people who think they should rebel until they get their little kingdom like Satan did," said Beck. "You know what? Thanks, Mr. President, but I think we're going to keep the Internet the way it is right now. You know—or at least until people who are worshipping Satan, you know, aren't in office."

The mechanism by which net neutrality will silence Beck and those like him remains murky, but the matter is clearly of great concern.
Click to expand...
 
I just don't understand how outlining that ISPs must deliver equal access to destinations of equal traffic type (ie not favor one host over another) will somehow LIMIT access to content or LIMIT viewpoints. The whole point is it ENSURES ISPs must provide access to all content and viewpoints -- even those from sources that are unpopular with the provider for political or financial reasons.

Beck builds this house of cards that Net Neutrality is bad by associating it with someone who has had some socialist contacts, rather than on any content or factual information, whatsoever. It seems like we have seen this type of guilty-by-association reasoning before....

No doubt I didn't realize that Glenn Beck knew any other slams other than Nazi.
Click to expand...

Oh, errr... yeah. um...
 
Well, you know Beck is full of shit when he says:
Thanks, Mr. President, but I think we're going to keep the Internet the way it is right now.
Click to expand...
So far the FCC and US lawmakers have succeeded in keeping the net neutral. So I guess the President should just appease Beck and say "Ok, you win Beck, we'll keep it exactly as it is!"

What a moron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top