Comments on: GOP Moves to Block Net Neutrality

By: AT&T and Google at Odds Over Google Voice–This Time For Realz | Technologizer

Fri, 02 Oct 2009 14:51:12 +0000

[...] certain calls that would cost it a lot of money to connect, Google is violating the philosophy of net neutrality which it’s famous for enthusiastically [...]

By: Darkr0nin

Darkr0nin — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:34:49 +0000

It would come as no surprise to me if the GOP wanted to do this simply because Obama is trying to pass net neutrality.

Being against something simply because someone you don’t like is for is ludicrous and stupid. It doesn’t matter what the political philosophy is, a politician is not capable of making responsible decisions if their opinions boil down to “anti-something”.

Net neutrality is a very good idea. It keeps the internet a free source of information. If we don’t have net neutrality, corporations could charge a service to use particular sites in addition to paying for a connection. Furthermore, since conglomerates would have control over the information on the internet, they could adjust searches to fit their biases.

Net neutrality is the only way the transfer of mass information can be free unbiased for everyone. It’s a tragedy how much of a joke the Republican party is now.

By: ETF Plays On “Net Neutrality” Dispute | ETF Database

ETF Plays On “Net Neutrality” Dispute | ETF Database — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:01:57 +0000

[...] debate over net neutrality is divided down party lines. Republicans generally oppose the plan, and moved to eliminate FCC funding for developing and implementing new Internet regulations. Genachowski was appointed to [...]

By: tom b

tom b — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:44:58 +0000

Those GOP swine are always willing to sell anybody down the river to line their own pockets. I don’t want ComCast or Time Warner throttling back on my Vimeo videos for the benefit of Hulu or some other big media service. It the “series of pipes” is too narrow, the solution is bigger pipes (particularly the “last mile”); not increased restrictions on consumers. It is great the FCC is looking at net neutrality. It is needed.

By: Republicans move to block net neutrality – Thoughts - Raoul Pop

Republicans move to block net neutrality – Thoughts - Raoul Pop — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:00:06 +0000

[...] Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Arabic The latest push to get the net neutrality bill passed met with resistance from Republicans and Comcast, one of the large American ISPs. Apparently they think the market regulates itself. It would, in a [...]

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 04:39:56 +0000

If government (usually State and local, actually) regulation were reduced, instead of increased, more companies would create a more competitive ISP market.

Instead, people complain about current conditions and try to codify into law the conditions of the 1990s, which do not apply, in addition to increasing the regulatory burden by raising barriers to entry, ensuring that current service providers do not have to compete to stay afloat.

By: Kevin L

Kevin L — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 03:44:07 +0000

Oh yeah, I was going to comment on the partisan politics issue too. As I said, I’m for neutrality, but I think (or hope) that the Republicans are approaching this from the point of being cautious about allowing the FCC to set precedents. The commission already has a lot of power over industries like phone service and broadcasters. Is taking their authority from just the physical layer to the actual data layer necessary? I hope they consider that by enforcing net neutrality, though, the FCC would be encouraging free market competition – something conservatives like myself are always for. Fiscal conservatism should be about preventing “unnatural” monopolies, reining in natural monopolies, and freeing competitive markets, and net neutrality is all of those.

By: Kevin L

Kevin L — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 03:39:12 +0000

Here’s my question: what about cell phone companies that offer free in-network calling and/or texting? Is that unfair to their users? Believe me, I’m all for net neutrality and don’t think ISP’s should change your bandwidth based on the source of traffic any more than phone companies should degrade calls from competing long distance carriers. Like I’ve said before, if it was truly a bandwidth issue, then reduce users’ bandwidth across the board. But of course ISP’s can’t do that because then their customers would be unhappy. If they’re going to advertise the speeds they do, they had better provide.

And as for my cell phone analogy, I just remembered that the FCC policy includes mobile web, so eventually everything will be over IP – including voice – so it won’t matter.

By: John Baxter

John Baxter — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 03:17:49 +0000

I fear this about “Net Neutrality”: the same direct marketing lobby that caused the CAN-SPAM act to essentially allow all spam from their members will insist that their spam not be blocked by ISPs.

And then other lobbies’ members will try to sell you even more spam filtering for your machine. The d..n stuff should be stopped before it ever gets into your ISP’s network.

By: AJ

AJ — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 02:46:17 +0000

Daniel,

Politicians never speak for us, only their campaign contributors.