I say if we lose NetNeutrality, we won't be able to access site like PoliticalForum.com if our ISP was bribed by either side. I know from experience that Verizon is paid by ATI to block some NVidia webpages!

What do YOU think about NN?

Why is it that the government must regulate everything these days? If we have the government come in and regulate evrything we will end up like Russia at the end of WWII. Some things must be regulated as in how certain content can be accessed but if a company wants to show preference to one company while its not 'fare' its the companies decision and business can be carried somewhere else.

As I see Net Neutrality it does affect the public like when the government broke up AT&T or went after Microsoft

Net Neutrality is a step for the Government to control the Internet.

The Philosophy for Net Neutrality is this: Everyone should be able to see what they want without needing Permission from their ISP. The Internet needs to remain free, for it is an enterprise of open knowledge.

You know what else? File Sharing. And most of these Senators and Congressmen who support Net Neutrality have either not payed any attention to right to copy (MGM verses Sony) right to download (MGM Verses Grokster) or have been against File Sharing. Why be so vehementally against the peoples right to Copy and Download but then turn around and be in emotional and moral support of Net Neutrality?

Also, all of this talk about ISPs regulating content. ISPs have tried this before. AOL is the most notable. You may only use their e-mail, you may only browse their websites, you may only use their browser, etc etc. I still remember the days of "AOL Keywords" to visit websites. This idea has been used before and it doesn't work. If ISPs all over where to begin this kind of browsing, it wouldn't work for them in the end. Some other ISP will see that there's a demand for "neutral" internet and they will provide a service which is not regulated. But will people use this service? No. And here's why.

People have become so relied on ISP provided anti-virus and pop-up blockers and other "security" companion programs, which are under contract to only be packaged with that ISP that people aren't willing to go with an ISP that will just provide them with a connection to the internet,.. a potentially unsafe internet that their little PopUp Sweepy Machine with Feather DusterUpper Cookie Shredder won't protect them with. And then only certain programs which require internet connections will cease to work or will only work with a certain connection. These fools aren't going to dump their ISP, along with their protection software, protection updates, favorite websites, favorite messengers, because they are unable to be a part of the free open source "read the manual" "keep it simple, stupid" world.

It will probably be a very long time until ISPs think to do this, since a lot of us still have a sense of quality and responsibility for the online world, and the open source world is only getting bigger. But, we still live in the Microwave Age, where we must have instant satisfaction, regardless of the quality we'll get in return.

This doesn't explain how NetNeutrality helps the government to control the internet.

I'm not against file sharing per se, but I see big difference between it and NN. File sharing isn't about permission from your ISP; it's about permission from private companies who own the rights to files being copied and downloaded. I can understand why some people would want some amount of internet regulations, and the only reason I don't support them is because I don't own copywrited material that could be downloaded off the internet. File sharing is about viewing other people's personal protected property that you otherwise would not have legal access to unless you paid for it.

There are a variety of internet protection software that is unaffiliated with any ISP that can be purchased readily at any computer/electronics store. There's even software that can be downloaded free off the internet. If ISPs that allowed unrestricted access to the internet (in the bizarro world where most did not) but offered no internet protection, software companies would simply advertise their protection softeware more vigorously, seeing an obvious niche to be exploited. If it reallt is a problem at all, it's not because people rely too heavily on their ISP protection, but that they are not aware of better alternatives.

I personally don't trust the protection built into my ISP. Anyone who relies on it 100% for their internet protection is taking a unnecessary gamble.

__________________
WARNING: In the unlikely event of an accidental agreement with any or all points made in the above post, contact a clinical psychologist immediately.

The views expressed in the above post are not necessarily those of Joker and/or any of his affiliates.

"You have found the secret message. Do you have too much time on your hands? ...Let it go."

How else can Net Neutrality do it's job? How does the Government make sure that ISPs remain neutral? I doubt this would just be a law saying "if we catch you doing exclusive viewing on your subscribers, we'll fine you".


Which they don't. What right does a private company have to decide what is and what isn't on my hard drive. Much like the Government shouldn't have the right to decide what an ISP does to their subscribers, who, sign an agreement with the company.

That's not File Sharing. We need to set a difference between File Sharing, a common procedure in data exchange, which, really makes all of this internet possible to begin with. And producing Free "Bootleg" Copies. See? There isn't even a word for "illegal sharing". Bootleg implies that you sell it.

Also, it's the responsibility of the artist or the record label to secure their data. If they fail in doing so, then their efforts are in futile.

Yep. Can't find anything wrong with any of that.

We don't need the government to regulate NN. The free market would and does do that all on its own. As it stands, we have NN right now, and the government has done nothing to require that.

A private has a right to decide you can't have protected copywrited material on your hard drive unless you get permission or pay for it.

My bad. Perhaps I shouldn't discuss topics if I don't know well the lingo. When I think of file sharing, I think of sites like kazaa.com. I guess we are not on the same page here.

I understand your point philosophically, but I don't think this is true legally.

__________________
WARNING: In the unlikely event of an accidental agreement with any or all points made in the above post, contact a clinical psychologist immediately.

The views expressed in the above post are not necessarily those of Joker and/or any of his affiliates.

"You have found the secret message. Do you have too much time on your hands? ...Let it go."

Internet service providers are planning to create a tiered system in which those companies that pay gain favor. In this way, not all companies and other entities with a presence on the net will be equally accessible to consumers...
Thus the end to net neutrality.
That's why there is talk of government intervention to preserve NN

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside