news.com.com — ISPs would not be "allowed to "block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair or degrade" access to content or to prevent users from attaching devices of their choosing to the network. they would also be barred from making special deals with content providers to ensure speedier delivery or improved quality of service"
May 19, 2006 View in Crawl 4
mongooseMay 20, 2006
Wow.. What a horrible name. It's so sad that the government has made me dispise the word "freedom." Maybe they should try using other words for once.Other than that, this bill is a good move. If they keep pumping these things at Congress, one's sure to pass, right?
trikkymakkMay 20, 2006
I wish people would stop saying democracy. We are a republic. There is a difference.
waterdragonMay 20, 2006
Don't trust them. While they are distracting you by passing laws like that-- in the bigger picture, they are simultanously planning more invasions and destroying more cultures/countries/families.There are a few in the gov't who are just itching to try out their damn nukes on some people, somewhere -- anywhere. I trust them about as far as I can piss on the third rail of the subway trains. And I was born and raised in NYC.(That's the city where they destroyed those two towers and thousands of people, just to create an excuse to go to war, by blaming it on some 'foreigners'.) Yeah net neutrality is nice, is needed -- but you have to keep a sharp eye on that government...at least until the 2006 elections, when they all get kicked out on their asses.
sorpigalMay 20, 2006
It's got a much cooler name!
techcowboyMay 21, 2006
Republicans for taxing? Isn't it the Republicans that have so far held off major taxes on the Internet? Profits don't come from limited access, limited access limits money. You truly need to take a few economics courses and study a tad bit of history before you put fingers to your keyboard.
mesogenJun 9, 2007
ISPs would not be "allowed to "block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair or degrade" access to content or to prevent users from attaching devices of their choosing to the network. they would also be barred from making special deals with content providers to ensure speedier delivery or improved quality of service"Can't they do that now if they wanted? They don't because they make more money by NOT doing that.