'Net Neutrality' Rules Set to Pass

[HydraBob]

This is the end of the internet:

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704610904576032033563531432.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLETopStories
WASHINGTON—The top communications regulator won support to pass contentious new rules for Internet traffic, a move likely to face legal challenges and create uncertainty about Internet regulation.
The Federal Communications Commission is set to approve on Tuesday Chairman Julius Genachowski’s proposed rules governing net neutrality—a concept aimed at preventing Internet providers from interfering with web traffic.
The rules are expected to bar providers from discriminating against legal Internet traffic and require more transparency. They also would let broadband providers for the first time charge more to companies that want faster service for delivery of games, videos or other services.

investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/557260/201012171913/Dont-Tangle-The-Web-With-Rules.htm
Internet: The U.N. is talking about regulating the Web. Meanwhile, Washington is moving toward regulating online news and information content. Though not unexpected, these are deeply disturbing developments.
The U.S. media don’t seem interested in the United Nations’ attempt to invade the private sector, so word that the international body “is considering whether to set up an inter-governmental working group to harmonize global efforts by policy makers to regulate the Internet” had to come from an Australian outlet called iTnews.

 

[Holly3278]

I’m a little bit confused by the first article and I don’t really have time to read the other one. I will try and read it later. Am I right that they are passing laws which will force “net neutrality”? If so, I honestly think I am for that. I don’t believe that internet service providers should be allowed to control the amount of bandwidth we get for viewing any one specific site. The reason is because they could easily use such power to make it more difficult to load a site like Catholic Answers Forums but make it easier to load a site like the ACLU’s site or something like that. That’s just a random example by the way.

 

[Rohanfan]

I’m a little bit confused by the first article and I don’t really have time to read the other one. I will try and read it later. Am I right that they are passing laws which will force “net neutrality”? If so, I honestly think I am for that. I don’t believe that internet service providers should be allowed to control the amount of bandwidth we get for viewing any one specific site. The reason is because they could easily use such power to make it more difficult to load a site like Catholic Answers Forums but make it easier to load a site like the ACLU’s site or something like that. That’s just a random example by the way.

I actually will have to agree with Holly. I do not want any regulation to regulate me from getting to what ever website I am going to.

Paul

 

[HydraBob]

I actually will have to agree with Holly. I do not want any regulation to regulate me from getting to what ever website I am going to.

Paul

That seems to be the momentum of where things are going. It’s interesting how wikileaks is being used to drive the issue. Also, I recently visited the International Spy Museum in Washington DC and they have this large room that talks about cyberterrorism in the 21st century and how hackers taking out power grids is dangerous etc. All this cyberterrorism and cyber espionage seems like just an excuse to push through control over the internet and control over our freedoms.

and FYI, hacking a power grid is not as easy as it sounds.
wired.com/dangerroom/2010/07/hacking-the-electric-grid-you-and-what-army/

 

[edwest2]

This has nothing to do with freedom. The government is called evil whenever it touches something people like, and it’s called good whenever it gives people something they want.

As an individual who works in the media, and who is required to understand how it functions, this is all about money, and monopoly. How many credit companies are out there? Do you think it would be nice if you had a few more choices? In this case, a few companies own most internet access. If a new kid wants to join and use their infrastructure to get things on the internet, he has to use their fiber or microwaves or any other transmission infrastructure. He can’t afford to build his own and make a profit. And this is ONLY about making a profit.

So no. Nobody’s freedom is being taken away. Only radical anarchists and Leftists are making noise because that’s what they do. National Security is a real issue, not some theory. And wouldn’t it be wrong to tell everybody about all those little secret things the government is doing to keep us safe? Of course it would - be wrong that is.

The whole Wikileaks affair is just like a bunch of 60’s radicals breaking the law, breaking into the Dean’s office and yelling - “Look how evil he is!” What? He decided to crack down on binge drinking and marijuana use on campus?

The internet began as ARPAnet, a part of the very fun Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. More regulation is coming because billions of legitimate dollars are at stake.

Peace,
Ed