What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
You Are The Last-Minute Gift Master! (Guaranteed Win.) view!
bestbuy.com - This gift is never obsolete, everyone likes it and it's always in stock at the last minute...
55 Comments
- ChloeMS, on 11/02/2009, -0/+27SEC. 230. [47 U.S.C. 230] ...
(a) FINDINGS.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive
computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
(2) These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.
(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
(b) POLICY.--It is the policy of the United States--
(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
(3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;... - tgc1, on 11/02/2009, -1/+23* In the United States.
- ProfBagelwood, on 11/02/2009, -0/+16It's typical that certain people are trying to spin this into "Does the FCC have the power and jurisdiction to govern the internet?" when that's not the question at all. It's a blatantly sensationalist attempt at stirring up the people who thoughtlessly fall in line to chant "Get the government off our backs!" whenever corporations trick them to.
The real question is "Does the FCC have the power and jurisdiction to make rules about how business in the United States conduct themselves with regards to communication services?" and the answer is obviously yes, because that is in fact the whole point of the FCC.
Whether or not you support net neutrality, trying to ask whether the FCC is allowed to make communications regulations for businesses to follow is silly to me. - inactive, on 11/02/2009, -1/+15Maybe they have the theoretical power, but you can bet your ass if they shut down the internet the streets would be filled with angry nerds with nothing else to do the next day.
- bringitontimx, on 11/02/2009, -2/+15No. the power to protect American access to the net, yes.
- affcustdetail, on 11/01/2009, -5/+17The fcc has far more power than most people think. If the fcc wanted to shut down the net then they could do that.
- ftc08, on 11/02/2009, -0/+11Let's make sure it stays that way.
- inactive, on 11/02/2009, -1/+11I'd set up a meme stand, and act out people's favorite memes for $1 a go.
- bringitontimx, on 11/02/2009, -1/+9FCC = American
There's a lot of "the internet" that is not American. - starlon2, on 11/02/2009, -0/+7Earlier in the year people were worried about deep packet inspection (DPI) and advertising schemes utilizing the technology. Part of the issue was sparked by a broad misunderstanding of internet technology in general, and fear of privacy invasion propelled the notion that DPI is a bad thing -- which I agree with. Now people are scared that the FCC's going to destroy the internet with net neutrality rules. Again, largely due to a misunderstanding of the technology, except this time in a harmful way. Man, if people would just take a couple of networking courses, this type of overreaction would be absent. Then we could actually have an intelligent discussion over the future of the internet. The idea of people, who have no clue what URL means, trying to develop internet policy is just frightening. I'm looking at you Mr. John McCain.
- abehammy111, on 11/02/2009, -0/+6....but also no one really should declare that they "own" the internet. the internet is a free space.
- Crimeodial, on 11/02/2009, -0/+6I don't think the framers of the constitution had even the vaguest notion that something like the internet may arise someday. The document needs to be updated from time to time.
- ctenn2ls, on 11/02/2009, -0/+6JrayK, you know someone's going to ask you for 2 girls 1 cup and you're going to regret your low, low price.
- bringitontimx, on 11/02/2009, -0/+6It seems most people have no ***** clue what the internet is or how it works.
- ProfBagelwood, on 11/02/2009, -1/+7I support having net neutrality regulations because I prefer having my rights defined, guaranteed, and protected. To me, it's the same reason for why we decided it would be a good idea to have a Bill of Rights.
- MWeather, on 11/02/2009, -1/+6"to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;"
How can you mandate the preservation of the current market, but prohibit regulation? If the market decides on it's own to change, only regulation can change it back in it's current monopolized state. Consumers are SOL. - bringitontimx, on 11/02/2009, -1/+6to think that it'll somehow turn into the manipulation of content is superstitious and unfounded, and this is most of what the Republicans are relying on.
- roddack, on 11/02/2009, -0/+5It is a series of tubes
- slabdigger, on 11/02/2009, -0/+4If there was more competition on the ISP market, the larger ISPs would buy the smaller ones. Business naturally moves towards mono or duopoly. The only thing that stands in the way are laws. Net neutrality is basically an anti-extortion law for the web. It keeps ISPs from charging websites for bandwidth AND tiered access to bandwidth. A law is necessary to keep ISPs charging a byte as a byte. Net neutrality is roughly what we have now and we need a law to keep it that way.
- slabdigger, on 11/02/2009, -0/+4Well, I know it's not a big truck that you just dump some stuff on...
- KibibyteBrain, on 11/02/2009, -0/+4I'm pretty sure if the US Internet went down unexpected things would break all over. Not as bad as it would used to have been and I'd guess soon enough the world will be less dependent on US Internet firms, but for now, I bet you would not like it across the pond either.
- ProfBagelwood, on 11/02/2009, -0/+4One of the most important roles of democracy is to protect the rights of the citizens. This is why there are regulations that even businesses have to follow.
Also, there is a very, very, very big difference between "making rules about how businesses in the United States conduct themselves" and "telling businesses how to conduct themselves." The first just says, "It's up to you what you do, as long as you don't break these rules," and your way is a much more FUD-tastic "We will tell you exactly what to do." For example, when the government decided to have food safety regulations, it did not seize control of the meat industry. It was still up to the businesses to decide how to conduct themselves. They just weren't allowed to let stuff like rat feces in the food anymore like they did before.
Anyway, net neutrality regulations have nothing to do with censorship at all. Support net neutrality and oppose censorship. - ProfBagelwood, on 11/02/2009, -1/+4If you really mean that, then support net neutrality and oppose censorship. They are totally separate issues, and it is disingenuous to try to use censorship to create FUD about net neutrality.
- theuniversal, on 11/02/2009, -0/+3The FCC "is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable."
This clearly covers internet related communications, which are also based on wire, satellite, and cable. There is nothing 'ancillary' about it. Comcast is grasping at straws here and although the EFF's stance is predictable, it's clearly on the losing side of the issue. This is much ado about nothing. The EFF should stay away from nutty arguments and focus on the real issue - making sure the net neutrality regulations are good for users. - starlon2, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2That's exactly what people don't understand. They think something's changing, that the Obama administration is making a power grab for the internet, but the FCC just wants things to remain as they have been. It's where the lack of knowledge about internet technology steps in and destroys the discussion.
- bringitontimx, on 11/02/2009, -0/+2TV = a one-way broadcasting method used by networks.
Internet = a two-way medium of communication that works essentially as a sort of portal to the world. - Elranzer, on 11/02/2009, -0/+2The FCC should really stick to its original duty of regulating electronic emissions and quit expanding into the realms of censorship.
- Kwanijml, on 11/02/2009, -1/+3yup. for the time being, it seems that the FCC is actually the net's best friend. But it's a slippery slope if we start depending on the FCC to regulate our way to net neutrality.
http://digg.com/tech_news/Net_neutrality_pitting_W ... - bringitontimx, on 11/02/2009, -0/+2the problem is that ISPs in the United States have an oligopoly; if there was more competition, then yes, things would sort themselves out better.
- DeathfireD, on 11/02/2009, -0/+2Except the only "people" getting mad about the FCC's supposed "regulating the internet" is the ISP's and cable operators and maybe the backwards ass people running FOX. The FCC has stated they're not changing anything, they're just making that fine line that ISPs love to cross more defined so they cant anymore.
- DeathfireD, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2I blame Fox news and McCain. I've heard Fox mention, no less then 5 times, that net neutrality is bad because it allows government to control and regulate the Internet. I've had to explain about 50 times to people I know that Fox has it backwards. They're fighting for the same thing without even knowing what net neutrality means.
- OBKenobi, on 11/02/2009, -1/+3The problem is that if the FCC gets the right to regulate, they will next start to censor. That is what they did with TV and radio. People don't seem to realize that the FCC didn't start out with censorship powers, they were created to regulate traffic, not content, but look at how that's all changed. Now people are content to allow the US government to censor broadcasts.
- EllimistX, on 11/02/2009, -2/+4That'd just give Skynet a reason to wipe us out.
- MacHarborGuy, on 11/02/2009, -0/+1we don't *need* permanent anything. What would have happened if slavery was permanently fixed into the nations laws, to where no one could remove the right to own slaves? Or for something a little closer to memory, how about a permanent Patriot Act, or permanent DMCA?
Laws must remain non-permanent so that they may be changed in the future due to changing of the times, removing laws that make no sense in the day and age, or simply trim away stupid laws that never should have happened in the first place. - OBKenobi, on 11/02/2009, -2/+3If there was more competition in the ISP market things would take care of themselves. But the FCC has consistently sided with big business over the years and created the broadband monopolies we have today. In most parts of the country you do not have a choice of providers. 1mbps DSL is no equivalent to 30mbps FTTH service, there is no choice.
- Elranzer, on 11/02/2009, -0/+1If the US Internet went down, then Google would be down. So what's the point? I'd go read a book or something...
- Crimeodial, on 11/02/2009, -0/+1The ***** does that even mean?
- simongiln, on 11/02/2009, -0/+1Does it have authority independent of any new legislation? Debatable, but I think it's safe to say that we *need* permanent legislation, so that the FCC can't simply change its mind about Net Neutrality sometime in the next 4 or 8 years. The EFF's "Internet decency" argument is alarmist (and wrong IMO), but it does at least point out that these new regulations could simply evaporate when the next administration comes in.
- QubitTarutaru, on 11/02/2009, -0/+1"(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;" ..... "vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists".... What! Where? They certainly are not talking about where I live.
- inactive, on 11/02/2009, -1/+1OH NO. Skynet vs. Government conspiracy. Which has more power? Can't....Decide...Universe has reached singularity. Cannot compute.
- jorgio, on 11/02/2009, -1/+1UNLIMITED POWER!!!
- shig, on 11/02/2009, -2/+2Congress should have preserved the internet that consisted of telephone cords and 300 baud rate modems, so that those evil, monopolistic, cable corporations couldn't enter the market and ***** on the consumers.
/s - pagno, on 11/02/2009, -2/+2Im all for net neutrality, and also think the Govt. should stay out of it. The question, then, is can the corporations be trusted to police themselves? If they could, we wouldnt even be talking about this. There was a time in this country when corporations were denied charters unless they benefited the public. I dont see how milking a decrepit infrastructure and raising prices benefits the public, but then again, Im dont have a business degree...
- Ghostalker, on 11/02/2009, -2/+2Wasn't there a movie about that?
- slabdigger, on 11/02/2009, -1/+1By definition, net neutrality is anti-censorship. All packets are equal, regardless of content.
- MatzahMan, on 11/02/2009, -3/+3Who the hell cares, as long as there is someone or something protecting the internet from those who wish to destroy it or manipulate it, I am all for them.
- PhillAholic, on 11/02/2009, -1/+1@Elranzer Google is all over the world, not just the US http://www.google.com/jobs/locations.html
- NorthMass, on 11/02/2009, -3/+2telling businesses how to conduct themselves is the FCC governing the internet basically, the thing is that it would be good to stop a tiered internet from happening. But why would anyone trust the FCC to stop at that and not want any more power?
-
Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is