arstechnica.com — One of the most vocal anti-network neutrality lobby groups has written to the FCC... in support of an investigation of Comcast. Pressure is building on the FCC to act, and opponents of net neutrality would rather have an industry-friendly FCC investigating the issue than a new law.
Nov 12, 2007 View in Crawl 4
scornedpatriotNov 13, 2007
Right... which is what we have now (Comcast withheld). So why do we need to pass a bill that introduces regulation of what we have, if what we have works without regulation? You see what I mean? Passing the "Net Neutrality Bill" takes away net neutrality by placing regulation on it. If you truly want the net to remain neutral you should vote against the bill. It makes no sense, but this is how they are trying to sell it to people. I said the same thing in my original post, it's just so convoluted that you can't even explain it properly to people!
factionriderNov 13, 2007
Uhh, there is more than one cable company. However, because of the way the cable system works you only have one choice in who to go to.
yodaj007Nov 13, 2007
Despite those bills you named, the government is still capable of passing laws that favor the consumer over the corporation. The bill is not a step in making a fascist government as there is in China; rather, it's meant to stop that very thing on the corporate level.
missingnoh4xNov 13, 2007
Amen to that. It's one thing to cap bandwidth, it's another to restrict what your bandwidth can be used for. And for Comcast to cap bandwidth while advertising the service as 'unlimited'.
undetectedNov 13, 2007
I don't think that qualifies as harming the network. There should be a difference between a few applications eating up bandwidth that the service provider agreed to provide, and a device or an application that is eating up whatever bandwidth is provided with the intent of preventing other users from accessing the internet.
absurdparadoxNov 14, 2007
And why not?
absurdparadoxNov 14, 2007
What sort of problems would that create?