I actually agree with the premise of this one. I have not personally been affected by a blockage of web sites so I can't say for sure that these companies are even doing it. But if they are, I think it's bull shit. Just because I have Comcast as an internet PROVIDER, meaning gateway, they sure as hell better not block me from their competitors. I pay for the access, not the content. If we go down that path, the internet will be like cable TV with all kinds of packages to buy. I believe the internet should be entirely accessed through whatever provider you have. And this crap of limiting bandwith for certain sites like YouTube and such is bull shit too. The fact is, there's plenty of bandwith to go around. Keep the internet FREE.
7 comments:
For once we are total agreement.
Oh boy, now I'm scared....
sorry getlive i have to disagree with you on this one.
from what i understand about this issue the government would decided what you get.
kind of like a fairness doctrine.
check out this link from IBD
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=509810
I'm no expert on the internet but here's how i see it.
Private companies agenda: PROFIT
this means they'll give you what you want because that's what you'll pay for.
Government Agenda: well depends on the administration but they don't care about profit so they'll give you what THEY want you to see.
Pay attention brother.
I am against government regulation of the internet but net neutrality just guarantees equal access to everyone. All the rest is wingnut conspiracy theory.
By the way, a coalition of liberal and conservative bloggers have been advocating net neutrality for years.
Yea, I think gary is right on this one. It just means that the providers can't decide what you see or don't see. You get to see it ALL no matter who your provider is.
But then again, that is what is being sold to us. If net neutrality means the FCC can regulate then I am not for this at all.
Post a Comment