Net neutrality act .. squashed !

[razark]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

It does? So you want goverment regulation over the internet?

That is after all is what they were hoping for.

The government control being that the government said the private company can't regulate the internet?

[August]

Originally Posted by razark

The government control being that the government said the private company can't regulate the internet?

Exactly.

[Wolfehunter]

Who is worse? governments or companies? Both are going to use it to there own gains.. People will suffer anyhow...

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Wolfehunter

Who is worse? governments or companies? Both are going to use it to there own gains.. People will suffer anyhow...

...or the third option; anarchy.

The government doesn't need to regulate the internet. They merely need to regulate the providers.

[August]

Imagine having our access to Subsim deliberately slowed down or even limited to a particular geographic area because Neil doesn't pay his IP an extra fee. Imagine a big company with deep pockets paying an IP to squeeze the connection to their small competitors.

This is what Net Neutrality was trying to avoid.

[tater]

Yeah, and healthcare reform was supposed to be "deficit neutral" and "bend the cost curve down."

Oh, and all negotiations were supposed to be on CSPAN (all of the above per direct statements by the President).

It will do none of the above, and we were instead told by the Speaker that it needed to be passed so we (the People) could see what was in it.

Again, what was the text of the law? Was it longer than what I posted above? If it was, it likely did a lot more than you say was the goal.

[Platapus]

tater, you twice asked what the wording of the proposed law was. Why don't you research it and read it for yourself?

If you are really interested in the wording of legislation, it is best to go to a reliable source instead of asking on a video game forum.

[August]

Originally Posted by tater

Yeah, and healthcare reform was supposed to be "deficit neutral" and "bend the cost curve down."

Well yeah, but however failed or misguided the effort was, it does not mean the need for reform doesn't exist.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by August

Imagine having our access to Subsim deliberately slowed down or even limited to a particular geographic area because Neil doesn't pay his IP an extra fee. Imagine a big company with deep pockets paying an IP to squeeze the connection to their small competitors.

This is what Net Neutrality was trying to avoid.

I don't disagree with that premise, and I'll admit I'm only vaguely familiar with the issue in question. However, I also don't disagree with the idea of covering pre-existing conditions (with some considerations, of course) regarding healthcare, but that does not mean that ObamaCare was a good thing.

I think the Act could have been simplified to prevent the "problem" while avoiding the more intrusive government impositions.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

Imagine having our access to Subsim deliberately slowed down or even limited to a particular geographic area because Neil doesn't pay his IP an extra fee. Imagine a big company with deep pockets paying an IP to squeeze the connection to their small competitors.

This is what Net Neutrality was trying to avoid.

We don't often agree, but we do on this issue.

The scary part of this is that as it currently stands, the outcomes are very bad for consumers. The ideologues will try to paint this as the big bad gubmint trying to control things on the internet, but they misunderstand the argument.

As it stands now:

A broadband company could, for instance, ink a deal with Microsoft to transfer all attempts to reach Google.com to Bing.com. The only recourse a user would have, under the ruling, would be to switch to a different provider — assuming, of course, they had an alternative to switch to.

Companies can also now prohibit you from using a wireless router you bought at the store, forcing you to use one they rent out — just as they do with cable boxes. They could also decide to charge you a fee every time you upgrade your computer, or even block you from using certain models, just as the nation’s mobile phone carriers do today.

But the last laugh may be on the ISPs. The FCC could potentially reclassify them as telecoms, bringing them under the FCC's purview. And that comes with a lot of regulation that the ISPs probably wouldn't like.

Read more here: http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/fcc-next/

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

We don't often agree, but we do on this issue.

The scary part of this is that as it currently stands, the outcomes are very bad for consumers. The ideologues will try to paint this as the big bad gubmint trying to control things on the internet, but they misunderstand the argument.

As it stands now:



But the last laugh may be on the ISPs. The FCC could potentially reclassify them as telecoms, bringing them under the FCC's purview. And that comes with a lot of regulation that the ISPs probably wouldn't like.

Read more here: http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/fcc-next/

Coulda, woulda, shoulda ...

But they don't.

In any case, it isn't up to the FCC to make those determinations.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by razark

The government control being that the government said the private company can't regulate the internet?

The ultimate goal was to be able to have the goverment regulate content on the internet in the name of "Fairness".

The thing with comcast was just a foot in the door.