House subcommittee votes to kill net neutrality

[R/T Hemi]

Republicans push through a resolution of disapproval for the FCC's new rules

Is there no end to what the Republicans will do to climb in bed with big business?

Short defination. Net neutrality = fair access to all cites by all net users.

http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/3 ... eutrality/

[audtatious]

Lack of net neutrality today has not stopped growth, why do you think it will when businesses make money from their offerings? My local provider just increased to 50Mb/s.

[srellim234]

aud- what really concerns me is the net will wind up mirroring our press. We already have corporate censorship of the press. Now we will also have corporate censorship of the internet since this allows them to control access and content. All of the watchdogs on behalf of the majority of the citizens of this country are being systematically silenced.

[audtatious]

Gotcha....I have not really been following this so I'll bow out until I can play catch up.

[bigbadberry3]

+1 to srellim for seeing a trend that needs to be stopped.

[mattblancarte]

+1 to srellim for seeing a trend that needs to be stopped.

+2

Why do major providers, corporations, etc. all hate the internet's hive-mind? Because it aims to sift through the BS mainstream message to find the truth.

If you are against net neutrality, you are for and inherently corrupt framework.

[IBCoupe]

Whaddafrig! Why can't we have the Republicans of 2006 back? Net neutrality used to have bipartisan support.

I'm going to repost a comment I made on here (and elsewhere) some time ago, when this was bigger in the news:

All of the arguments against net neutrality seem to be based on a hypothesis regarding what the Government might someday do (maybe), and not on what a net neutrality law would actually look like:

"An Internet Service Provider may not restrict customer access to the internet, either directly or by fee structure, on the basis of the content they seek."

Conservatives, can you go back a couple of years? I liked you better when you were honest.

[AppleBonker]

This concerns me greatly. Especially as internet service providers start getting more and more in bed with content. Heck, look at the Comcast NBC deal. Suppose Comcast wants to throttle other news sources (or streaming services) to promote their own (and gain the subscription/ad revenue for themselves), what is going to stop them? Or, what if they claim their costs went up and now need to charge other providers more money to offer NBC and their affiliates? I have a feeling I know where that is going to go: I'm either going to pay more for content, or get less content - neither one of those options being positive.

With the amount of revenue involved here, I highly doubt that any service provider is going to do the right thing and stay out of the content market. Especially when there are giants like Comcast who have the liquidity to push the little guys out of the market.

For the record, I do believe Comcast ranks in the top five of evil corporations world-wide. I'll admit I'm biased, but when I'm paying out the a** for sub-par service already, I think I have a reason to be biased. And before anyone tells me to use something else, believe me, I've looked. I would gladly use another provider that would cost me 30% less and provide better service if it were available to me. And I know this isn't a Comcast thread, but they are one of the leading players in destroying net neutrality in the US.

[HashiriyaS14]

This is a big problem.

This is as if Comcast could shut off any channel other than Fox News, or anything other than MSNBC, etc. At will.

That's a gross oversimplification, but it illustrates what's at stake.


I'd hope that the new Tea additions to Congress, advocates of personal liberties that they claim to be, will make sure this gets killed. This is SERIOUSLY wrong.

[srellim234]

A new wrinkle has been thrown into the mix here in California. I'm hoping this company is able to spread like wildfire.

http://www.caivn.org/article/2011/06/13 ... nnecessary

[bigbadberry3]

Wait. 1GB/S? Holy crap.

[IBCoupe]

Do want!

[AppleBonker]

Wait. 1GB/S? Holy crap.

I feel the need to point out that it is actually 1 Gb/s. Not 1 GB/s. That would actually be 0.125 GB/s or 125 MB/s.

Either way, it is much faster than the roughly 50 Mb/s I am currently getting for roughly the same price... Do want as well!

[stebo0728]

Whats the upload?