No. The government shouldn't regulate anything that has to do with the internet, and that includes the way that Internet Service Providers charge you for access. The idea is good, but i don't want government involved in any way.
Yes, yes and yes, keeping the internet neutral is the best way to protect freedom of speech, and that is one of things that the government has to do to ensure that no information is being censored.
I personally don't want the government messing around with my internet. Period. When it comes to the internet, politicians probably don't know or understand the values and uses that we see, regardless of how productive they are. They likely don't get internet memes, like Rick Roll, or Derp, or probably most of the other ones for that matter. I'm not willing to let it happen unless Congress becomes internet-certified enough that we can rely on them to make the right desicions that we can enjoy. Even then, I'm still sort of nervous about the government touching my internet. I will not lie, it does sound decent though. I just am afraid of what they might try to do with this sort of thing. (If any of you remember the Internet Censorship bill, you'll know what I'm talking about, after they tried passing that one, I kind of lost hope in Congress, except for my own senator from the state of Oregon, Ron Wyden, who opposed the bill).
Yes, yes and yes, keeping the internet neutral is the best way to protect freedom of speech, and that is one of things that the government has to do to ensure that no information is being censored.hiphops_savior
I support this, and the government shouldn't censor anything or control what websites I can and cannot view. Sorry to the soccer moms out there who don't want little Johnny discovering certain things on the internet. :P
[QUOTE="hiphops_savior"]Yes, yes and yes, keeping the internet neutral is the best way to protect freedom of speech, and that is one of things that the government has to do to ensure that no information is being censored.Saturos3091
I support this, and the government shouldn't censor anything or control what websites I can and cannot view. Sorry to the soccer moms out there who don't want little Johnny discovering certain things on the internet. :P That's what them internetz monitoring programz is for. Although most people won't know what /e/ or /h/ or /s/ or (God forbid anyone under 18 goes here) /d/ is. (If they do, they likely won't care if their kid was their or not unless they think it's getting out of hand, but that may also be unlikely).
[QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"]and doesnt net neutrality try and censor radio stations too? or am i thinking of another bill? either way its wrong and needs to stop.Agent-Zero
You must be the owner of an ISP. well that obviously answers my question /sarcasm
I support net neutrality because few markets actually have hi-speed internet choices. Most people I know have comcast, and as some of you know comcast just forced netflix to pay a undisclosed sum so comcast didn't cut of their streaming service. To me this seems like a pretty ethical violation on comcasts part.
An end to net neutrality would mean a loss of buisnesses, a loss of jobs, and a loss of US steering anything regarding the internet. Countries that do not have silly rules would quickly out pace us. Sites like youtube and hulu would be worthless. Netflix would cease their streaming service and lose a ton of buisness.
This is basically negative for ALOT of people (including big buisness) and positive for a few (Internet companies.)
And no, people will not be able to just "switch" to a new provider. Alot of areas have only one choice. Even an area like mine which is a large city only has one or two providers. A place in the boonies isn't going to have any choice at all.
[QUOTE="Agent-Zero"][QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"]and doesnt net neutrality try and censor radio stations too? or am i thinking of another bill? either way its wrong and needs to stop.kayoticdreamz
You must be the owner of an ISP. well that obviously answers my question /sarcasm
I really see zero reason to be against net neutrality aside from either
A. You work for/are on the board of directors/own/have stock in an ISP
B. You vehemently oppose anything regarding the government regulating something just on principle. Regardless of if it is necessary.
[QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"][QUOTE="Agent-Zero"] You must be the owner of an ISP.Pixel-Pirate
well that obviously answers my question /sarcasm
I really see zero reason to be against net neutrality aside from either
A. You work for/are on the board of directors/own/have stock in an ISP
B. You vehemently oppose anything regarding the government regulating something just on principle. Regardless of if it is necessary.
well from that i gathered on wiki it seems like its the government gaining control to regulate the internet....i oppose this in soo many ways. and while not support piracy the fact bittorent opposes it worries me further cause say what you will but pirates and hackers do normally conform to one rule on the internet down with censorship and normally want everything avaiable online. and i havent heard much on but being conservative i do know some conversatives arent exactly in favor of it so it does worry me. and well the fact it also sounds like a lot legal mumbo jumbo is never a good sign. nor do i like the FCC being involved in anything at all. and the fact obama supports who i never agree with worries me too. so given all that i think i must oppose it.
[QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"] well that obviously answers my question /sarcasmkayoticdreamz
I really see zero reason to be against net neutrality aside from either
A. You work for/are on the board of directors/own/have stock in an ISP
B. You vehemently oppose anything regarding the government regulating something just on principle. Regardless of if it is necessary.
well from that i gathered on wiki it seems like its the government gaining control to regulate the internet....i oppose this in soo many ways. and while not support piracy the fact bittorent opposes it worries me further cause say what you will but pirates and hackers do normally conform to one rule on the internet down with censorship and normally want everything avaiable online. and i havent heard much on but being conservative i do know some conversatives arent exactly in favor of it so it does worry me. and well the fact it also sounds like a lot legal mumbo jumbo is never a good sign. nor do i like the FCC being involved in anything at all. and the fact obama supports who i never agree with worries me too. so given all that i think i must oppose it. I want my packets handled equally, so I have no idea WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT AT ALL :)
Not only do I support net neutrality, I support a re-evaluation of the phrase "intellectual property" especially when it regards things on the internet.
regulation always leads to more regulation.politicians were warning that the internet would be taken after health care,and i think that regulating the isp is just one step in doing that.
Governments should stay away from trying to regulate the Internet but I also think there should be some regulation on ISP's especially when there is only one option for a town and that is considered a monopoly but because they provide the internet the FCC and others just turn the other cheek. Crap is to expensive for what they actually provide you and they know it and they also know they are the only option so nothing changes and they don't care.
No. The government shouldn't regulate anything that has to do with the internet, and that includes the way that Internet Service Providers charge you for access. The idea is good, but i don't want government involved in any way.
hoola
Yet it has been working for 15 years now.. And to give it over to private businesses would only lead to profit incentive based building.. I don't see how ANY ONE can be against this when it can go only downhill from here if this were to happen..
the goverment dosent need to mess with the internetsuperdum2
:| :cry: Do you have any idea what net neutrality is? Its a all encompassing idea of keeping all websites equal and services equal.. That ISP's can't choose what you can see and not see, or bombard you with commercials before you even get to the website.. The government has kept neutrality for 15 years more or less... If it ain't broke don;t fix it.
I don't want my internet played around with by the government or ISP. No thanks
Boston_Boyy
Well the government wouldn't "play around" with your internet, which is why net neutrality is so necessary. "Government involvement" just ensures that an ISP can't mess with what we have now.
I don't want my internet played around with by the government or ISP. No thanks
bluezy
Well the government wouldn't "play around" with your internet, which is why net neutrality is so necessary. "Government involvement" just ensures that an ISP can't mess with what we have now.
........... Its hilarious really, because the government has already been doing this for years.
Net Neutrality is really a misnomer.....sure I'm for it as of now...but to think the govt isn't eventually going to overstep it and start limiting our access as well is just foolish.......
Net Neutrality is really a misnomer.....sure I'm for it as of now...but to think the govt isn't eventually going to overstep it and start limiting our access as well is just foolish.......Omni-Slash
We have seen no evidence of this what so ever.. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Net Neutrality is really a misnomer.....sure I'm for it as of now...but to think the govt isn't eventually going to overstep it and start limiting our access as well is just foolish.......Omni-Slash
How do you overstep a policy of non-discrimination? Net neutrality -- ie, stopping ISPs from undue traffic shaping (ie the blocking/slowing/prioritizing of content for reasons other than bandwidth/network limitations) -- doesn't grant the government any greater control over the internet, so I fail to see how they could possibly abuse the concept. You can't exactly treat data more equally than "equally".
No. The government shouldn't regulate anything that has to do with the internet, and that includes the way that Internet Service Providers charge you for access. The idea is good, but i don't want government involved in any way.
Government involvement is not something i want..especially in regards to the internet..
PBSnipes
I hate to break it to you, but the government has always been heavily involved with the internet.
Somewhat but if people want this idea, i can see how many people would call the cops if they see someone walking around their neighborhood with a hoodie.
Somewhat but if people want this idea, i can see how many people would call the cops if they see someone walking around their neighborhood with a hoodie.OmegaPillow
I don't see your point. Traffic shaping is done over a large scale for long periods of time (otherwise it doesn't serve any puprose: if you're trying to screw with P2P connections you don't do it to fifteen people over a couple of hours, you do it to *everyone* on your network for an indefinite period of time), so there really isn't any concern of "false positives". And even if we were accept there is the risk of "false positives" for argument's sake, organizations are perfectly capable of accepting and vetting large quantities of submissions.
Log in to comment