news.com.com— Motorola and other tech types urge Congress to hold off on extensive rules they say could disrupt the way the Internet works.
Sep 19, 2006View in Crawl 4
actually, this so called tech company is also in the broadband business in some parts of the country, so uuhmm they think it would boost that market of their business. I guess they don't realize that it would hurt the other portions of their business.
This is a landmark law because the Internet had not been regulated by the FCC before. It sets a bad precedence for making it easier to pass more regulations in the future.
"If I want to get to a retail store, I get access to the store with my car at a neutral rate because everyone pays the same amount (in taxes) to utilize the roadways."Not in California. Your car registration is proportional to the value of your car. Also, gas is taxed, so the more you drive the more you pay.
@ SmokedI actually work with a company in the Hands Off coalition, that would typically be called "anti-net neutrality." It isn't, though. Non-discrimination is a principle the telecom industry supports. But the Snowe-Dorgan bill would make it illegal to offer QoS, and yes, that's new regulation that the industry is opposing. Google doesn't want to be faced with having to choose to pay for this new service -- and so they want the Senate to force Verizon, ATT, etc to hand it over. Not very democratic...
@no1nosI'm not talking about access as in "getting to the store" I'm talking about access as in "owning the store." Completely different argument then what you raise.
d00fySep 20, 2006
f**k you both!Hahahaha!! Net neutrality, no net neutraility, I'm still able to reign with stupidity!(Freedom of speech - I meant know offense).
taotehueSep 20, 2006
actually, this so called tech company is also in the broadband business in some parts of the country, so uuhmm they think it would boost that market of their business. I guess they don't realize that it would hurt the other portions of their business.
digitaldudSep 20, 2006
This is a landmark law because the Internet had not been regulated by the FCC before. It sets a bad precedence for making it easier to pass more regulations in the future.
geekeeSep 20, 2006
"If I want to get to a retail store, I get access to the store with my car at a neutral rate because everyone pays the same amount (in taxes) to utilize the roadways."Not in California. Your car registration is proportional to the value of your car. Also, gas is taxed, so the more you drive the more you pay.
ghoti06Sep 20, 2006
@ SmokedI actually work with a company in the Hands Off coalition, that would typically be called "anti-net neutrality." It isn't, though. Non-discrimination is a principle the telecom industry supports. But the Snowe-Dorgan bill would make it illegal to offer QoS, and yes, that's new regulation that the industry is opposing. Google doesn't want to be faced with having to choose to pay for this new service -- and so they want the Senate to force Verizon, ATT, etc to hand it over. Not very democratic...
hmtksteveSep 20, 2006
@no1nosI'm not talking about access as in "getting to the store" I'm talking about access as in "owning the store." Completely different argument then what you raise.