Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Net Neutrality's Quiet Crusader - washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com — Savetheinternet profiled in the Washington Post! Go net neutrality! :-D
katharinec- 811 diggs
- digg it
- Horhay1234, on 03/28/2008, -5/+32Ben Scott is right. We are now at the moment that will decided the future of the Internet for years to come. If we allow Telecommuncations companies to take control, the Internet will end up looking like radio and cable with cookie-cutter programming on every station (or Web site).
- johnmearns, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Asking the old men in congress that at best think the internet is a series of tubes clogged by porn to make legislation about it while the deep pockets of the telcom companies roam the halls of congress is a sure fire way to end up with something bad.
- misterpony, on 03/28/2008, -4/+12Thanks, Ben. Keep up the good work.
- ronaldst, on 03/28/2008, -14/+12No more government intervention please. They've ruined enough things as it is...
- luchid, on 03/28/2008, -10/+3Government intervention is not always bad. Simple, concise and well crafted regulation forbidding ISPs from performing any sort of throttling, prioritizing, distinction or discrimination of traffic
People who want to "leave the govt out of this" are the ones that do not understand what net neutraility is about and why it is so badly needed. - TomFrost, on 03/28/2008, -7/+4This isn't something where you can say "If you don't like it, go to another provider." Because even *IF* there's *one provider* who stays completely open, the quality of the internet still takes a nosedive because your data will still have to go over wires owned by the telecoms that ARE filtering. So what's better -- letting the government step in and force the internet to stay open (leaving a small possibility for them to hurt the internet in the process), or allowing the internet to turn to garbage with no hope of openness at all?
- ronaldst, on 03/28/2008, -8/+9No. Stay off my Internet. No one needs help from those incompetent buffons from the government.
Big Brother can take a hike!- toekneebullard, on 03/28/2008, -4/+10So what would you do when the internet becomes two tiered and unfair? What would you do when the Telcos get their hands all over it?
- FascistUtopia, on 03/28/2008, -3/+3how about we let the market work that out not the incompetent boobs aka the govt.
- toekneebullard, on 03/28/2008, -3/+3That's worked out well with gas prices right?
- logandurand, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2@toekneebullard: Because we all know how unregulated and untaxed gasoline is!
/sarcasm
- FascistUtopia, on 03/28/2008, -3/+3how about we let the market work that out not the incompetent boobs aka the govt.
- toekneebullard, on 03/28/2008, -4/+10So what would you do when the internet becomes two tiered and unfair? What would you do when the Telcos get their hands all over it?
- serif69, on 03/28/2008, -6/+5This is a cause even a diehard libertarian would have the government control. A free market is great, but never at the expense of personal freedoms.
- Scheissen, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3What the ***** are you on? I'm libertarian and getting the government involved in this matter will cause a loss of more rights than gain more. How about the government has no right to regulate private property? Stupid left-wingers, guess you shouldn't have paid for the cables now? You deserve to get ***** by the government and telecoms.
- logandurand, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3What personal freedoms are being limited? There is no "right" to internet connectivity; indeed, forcing neutrality on network owners would be a violation of *their* rights.
- pintomp3, on 03/28/2008, -6/+8net neutrality is about protecting the internet, not regulating it. it's the telco's who want to regulate it and create tiers in order to increase profits, stifle competition, and even smother voices of dissent. you may think you are being cool with your "i hate the government" stance, but you are just siding with the corporations. go suck an enron.
- ronaldst, on 03/28/2008, -5/+4Net Neutrality is about implementing new laws to regulate how ISPs act and run their business and everything else that comes in contact with those ISPs. Stop acting like a sheep and think about this.
- Clark3934, on 03/28/2008, -4/+4The problem is that the telcos have government-granted monopoly, which has screwed up the market. The market is no longer free. To think this governmentally deformed market is going to act like a genuine "free market" would be a mistake.
The government set up the rules that broke the market--and only they have the legal power to prevent future abuses of their inherently flawed system.- geekanarchy, on 03/28/2008, -3/+3So the system is flawed because of government involvement... and to fix that you need more government involvement? At least we can agree on the first part.
- pintomp3, on 03/28/2008, -3/+3the system is flaws because of corporate influence on our government. the solution is not to grant influence over the internet too.
- logandurand, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Why is it that whenever people see a problem caused by government intervention, the solution proposed is always *more* government control? Here's a radical idea - how about we solve this problem by getting rid of the laws that created it? There would be no need for forcing neutrality in a true free market system.
- geekanarchy, on 03/28/2008, -3/+3So the system is flawed because of government involvement... and to fix that you need more government involvement? At least we can agree on the first part.
- luchid, on 03/28/2008, -10/+3Government intervention is not always bad. Simple, concise and well crafted regulation forbidding ISPs from performing any sort of throttling, prioritizing, distinction or discrimination of traffic
- ibeandy, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3He's not so quiet now but seriously though, the world needs more people like this guy
- forgottenhope, on 03/28/2008, -16/+8What a bunch of turds. Why the ***** do you people think the government getting involved will solve our problems? Since when does the government not sleep with the same ISP you ***** terd eaters are chearing? Net nutrality is not a good thing, not for free people. No wonder mccain or obama or clinton will be president, this country is full of ***** idiots. The government is not reason and they dont need to be involved. ISP's are in court for this and all net nutrality does is allow for there to be tiered internet for slower and faster networks and gets the god damn government involved. They should have called it the patriot net nutrality act, ***** god damn idiots. How ***** ignorant do you have to be, For all of you jack ass government loving idiots who defy what the founders said we should do with government, wach a video that explains net nutrality. Before you jump on the cool name of the bill bandwagon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB2Xnu9xQVU Net nutrality is bad, obamas speech about it shows how ***** clueless he is, and the rest of the idiots that blindly follow all the ***** their candidate tells them. killing brown people is murder, just because they are an ocean away and you have no connection with human life doesnt mean you have the right. So when the middle east decides its had enough ofamerica ***** with it, you reap what you sow. Blowback, common sense, the brown people are not stupid, they know that we lie, and THEY know that THEY the iraq's and others have lost hundreds of thousands of innocent children and to dwell on 4,000 soldiers when we are killing people by the hundreds of thousands is a ***** christian society for you. very christian like when you kill people because god told you to, makes a lot different than them doesn it. Stop ***** sleeping and stop ***** killing innocnent people because you god is named jesus. ooky spooky language says carl.
- ziveeman, on 03/28/2008, -3/+6You have absolutely no ***** idea what you're talking about. See the word "neutral" in net neutrality? Yeah, that means NO tiered internet you douche. If you watched the video you posted, you would have realized that you're wrong.
Net neutrality advocates don't ask for a huge government regulation. If you did your research, net neutrality advocates just literally want one line of legislation, and that's "ISPs cannot mess with data on the Internet." Is that really "government regulation"?
And what the hell is the last half of your paragraph? That has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. Slippery slope FTW. - forgottenhope, on 03/28/2008, -9/+1i dont like your type you dont like government I think i should cry.
Digg down if you are a terd. - onetimer, on 03/28/2008, -2/+5...You're being dugg down because your just the typical pro-corporation apologist that uses words like "government regulation" to describe NN, when in fact, there is absolutely ZERO regulation by the government, and the goal is actually to prevent unfair regulation by the Telco's. In fact your entire argument rests on specious and an unsubstantiated premises, with a hint of slippery slope fallacy for good measure.
AT&T made the same ***** argument twenty years ago. No one fell for it then, and we're especially not going to fall for it now.- andrew1193, on 03/28/2008, -2/+2Sorry, but the federal government dictating permissible ISP business models and network administration methods sure sounds like government regulation to me.
- kingp, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2In exchange for PUBLIC funding to help with infrastructure rollouts because the Telcos wouldn't do it otherwise.
- andrew1193, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1Internet infrastructure in the US was privately funded, so much so that any government contribution is utterly insignificant.
- kingp, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2In exchange for PUBLIC funding to help with infrastructure rollouts because the Telcos wouldn't do it otherwise.
- logandurand, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Net neutrality is government forcing people to use their property in a certain way, rather than letting them choose what to do with it. If that isn't regulation, I don't know what is.
- andrew1193, on 03/28/2008, -2/+2Sorry, but the federal government dictating permissible ISP business models and network administration methods sure sounds like government regulation to me.
- toekneebullard, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3The video you just linked to says that the Net Neutrality act FAILING leads to BAD, TWO TIERED INTERNET. So then that would mean that the Act itself is good, and it should be passed, to enforce an equal, or NEUTRAL internet. That's the government intervening to keep the internet NEUTRAL.
See, even you're confused on this topic. - kingp, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3please PLEASE learn how to spell and use punctuation before you go on a mile long rant that is completely contradictory to the video you linked to because you think net neutrality is an evil plot of the gub'ment and will allow the evil shill corporate overlords to destroy life and the banana daiquiri as we know it.
- forgottenhope, on 03/28/2008, -5/+1The corporations are pulling for a 2 tier internet. It has to pass, otherwise there is no need for net nutrality. The problem is that the governmetn regulations with the net nutrality come into play if the coporations and congress allow the 2 tiers. Dont change the way it is now. Net nutrality is to fix a problem that doesnt exist until the congress gives the ips the legal right to ***** us over.
How can it lead to something that doesnt already exist. If the ISP's had the power now to do it, why are they lobbying for the 2 tier internet which created the monster called net nutrality?- onetimer, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2Wow, that's some shotty reasoning right there.
" The problem is that the governmetn regulations with the net nutrality come into play if the coporations and congress allow the 2 tiers. Dont change the way it is now."
The way it IS now IS a standard of Net Neutrality. You're argument consists of suggesting a scenario that doesn't exist and is completely contrary to what the bill is about, not to mention making up components of the bill that would give congress somehow the right to "***** us over"
- onetimer, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2Wow, that's some shotty reasoning right there.
- Chocobot, on 03/28/2008, -4/+2............................................________
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?......................................................,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:”........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,,...........................`..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_..........._,-%.......`
...................................,
- ziveeman, on 03/28/2008, -3/+6You have absolutely no ***** idea what you're talking about. See the word "neutral" in net neutrality? Yeah, that means NO tiered internet you douche. If you watched the video you posted, you would have realized that you're wrong.
- FaceCage, on 03/28/2008, -5/+9What is so wrong with the way the Internet functions right now? My speed is great, I have no restrictions. Why are we putting an organization that many of us can not stand, (our government) in charge of our one last piece of free speech and free communication?! Reconsider what you are pushing for. For the love of your children, keep the Internet free of our governments greedy, malformed hands.
- ziveeman, on 03/28/2008, -3/+8The Internet you know right now is in danger because telecoms want to control it. The government is not going to "be in charge" of the Internet. The government is just going to step in to say "ISPs can't mess with the Internet." and that's that. Nothing more.
- userperson, on 03/28/2008, -3/+3That's funny.
Telecoms DO control it ... things are trucking along fine, if they aren't you can switch ISPs
Politicians don't lie either.- akiratheoni, on 03/28/2008, -2/+2For some people, switching ISPs is not an option. it might be because their ISP is the only one in the area, or switching ISPs would make it too expensive because they bundle Internet and Television together, which ends up cheaper than getting each from different providers. Telecoms want more control over the Internet, similar to television or radio or the newspaper.
- userperson, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1Yeah, and if one lives out in the desert there might be no ISP at all. *amusement*
- logandurand, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Than cancel your damned service! Nobody *needs* the internet anymore than they need television. Also, the reason most people only have one ISP to choose from is because of government-granted monopolies. How is adding more regulation going to solve a problem caused by regulation?
- userperson, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1Yeah, and if one lives out in the desert there might be no ISP at all. *amusement*
- akiratheoni, on 03/28/2008, -2/+2For some people, switching ISPs is not an option. it might be because their ISP is the only one in the area, or switching ISPs would make it too expensive because they bundle Internet and Television together, which ends up cheaper than getting each from different providers. Telecoms want more control over the Internet, similar to television or radio or the newspaper.
- FaceCage, on 03/28/2008, -3/+2Thanks User,
It just doesn't click for most of these people.- userperson, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1I can understand, they see the war in Iraq, Social Security, Sex Education ... Gov't just make everything better! /s
Maybe I'm wrong about not wanting the Gov't to liberate the internet. It's a simple mission: they just want to come and keep things fair, it's not like they'd be favoring one set of big corporations (over another set), at the expense of free speech and property rights./s
- userperson, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1I can understand, they see the war in Iraq, Social Security, Sex Education ... Gov't just make everything better! /s
- johnmearns, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2I don't know why people dig down comments like userperson's. He's spot on, the telcom companies do control it now. Look at the tier 1 isp's, its practially a list of telcos with an exception or two. The system as it stands now works great. If your isp sucks you find a new one. Getting a bunch of old men that don't know anything about the internet and are bought off by companies with deep pockets (say...telcos) is a sure fire way to get screwed.
- userperson, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2userperson's comments aren't trendy or sexy.
He's advocating that the ISPs should have property rights and be able to do 'evil' things.
Net neutrality is 'sexier'. We go to Washington to ask them to make things 'fair' and get other people to do it for us.
These old men won't over step their bounds, they will save us, then everything will be perfect. /s
That way we don't have to change ISPs or pay more for better bandwidth, which probably won't be built as quickly now. /s
- userperson, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2userperson's comments aren't trendy or sexy.
- userperson, on 03/28/2008, -3/+3That's funny.
- nekochan, on 03/28/2008, -4/+3For the love of your children, keep the Internet free of corporations' greedy, malformed hands.
- userperson, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2too late.
Without the 'greedy corporations' this message wouldn't have gotten to you. Greedy corporations are the ones who deliver the internet to you.
But I'm sure the gov't will take good care of the internet, just like Iraq, Social Security, the DMV, ... etc.
- userperson, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2too late.
- toekneebullard, on 03/28/2008, -3/+4But who will stop the Telcos from limiting bandwidth to certain people, programs, ideas?
- FaceCage, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4Who has stopped them from the day the Internet was born?
- drywallbmb, on 03/28/2008, -3/+2Net Neutrality WAS the law of the land throughout the Internet's growth. It's only in the last two years that it's ceased to be mandatory. Net Neutrality advocates like Ben Scott are simply fighting to reinstate it so that you continue to not have any restrictions.
- vypergts, on 03/28/2008, -3/+4That's the whole point. The ISPs and Big Content(TM) want to change the Internet from how it works today to a system where all content is nickeled, dimed, and controlled.
- logandurand, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1But they have every right to do that - they own the network! They can do whatever they please with it.
- pintomp3, on 03/28/2008, -3/+7"My speed is great, I have no restrictions." that's the whole point, genius. net neutrality is about keeping it that way. it's the telcos who want to break that.
- FaceCage, on 03/28/2008, -4/+2Site an example, or 2 where telcos want to break that.
- onetimer, on 03/28/2008, -2/+11"ISPs have been throttling BitTorrent traffic for almost two years now. Most ISPs simply limit the available bandwidth for BitTorrent traffic, but Comcast takes it one step further, and prevents their customers from seeding."
http://torrentfreak.com/comcast-throttles-bittorre ... - FaceCage, on 03/28/2008, -5/+2onetimer,
The example you gave was that of Comcast? Whom got sent through the wringer for that? - JustAboutReal, on 03/29/2008, -2/+2"Whom got sent through the wringer for that?"
BECAUSE of net neutrality advocates
- onetimer, on 03/28/2008, -2/+11"ISPs have been throttling BitTorrent traffic for almost two years now. Most ISPs simply limit the available bandwidth for BitTorrent traffic, but Comcast takes it one step further, and prevents their customers from seeding."
- FaceCage, on 03/28/2008, -4/+2Site an example, or 2 where telcos want to break that.
- FaceCage, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3Corporations are running the website you are on right now, and they control most every inch of fiber in the world. Yet, for years the Internet has been can I say, ***** awesome? Comcast tried to throttle down Torrent use and paid dearly for it. Set an example by not allowing blatant control over information sent over the Internet. But don't be foolish enough to think that our government will be responsible with this duty.
A bill is passed, ISP's cannot throttle bandwidth. Who is going to regulate that, and how. I hope you see where I am going with this. The US Govt will have the ability to do whatever the hell they want if they suddenly have the power to investigate ISP's bandwidth usage. - PhantomSoul, on 03/28/2008, -3/+2Because we have to. Individual consumers cannot stand up to corporate agendas alone nearly as well as a collective can. But the collective needs a face, and one of the functions of a representative government (one in which its officials are elected) is to protect the concerns of its people. Granted, the current government hasn't been doing that well at all with its war on the middle class and individual consumerism altogether. But maybe this fall we can change that, because like it or not, sometimes we need to government to protect us.
- userperson, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2I know it's awful! it's not like you can just drop your internet plan: You have to pay them. There's no choice. No other ISPs. You are right we should get government to further regulate them like they have the cable industry. That's why cable bills keep going down isn't it? /s
But yeah I'm being silly, it's just a matter of getting the right people in, it'll be different this time, unlike all the others. - logandurand, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2So because "the collective" wants something, they should be able to use the government to force others to give it to them? How is that fair to the people who own the internet infrastructure? Net Neutrality violates their property rights.
- userperson, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2I know it's awful! it's not like you can just drop your internet plan: You have to pay them. There's no choice. No other ISPs. You are right we should get government to further regulate them like they have the cable industry. That's why cable bills keep going down isn't it? /s
- ziveeman, on 03/28/2008, -3/+8The Internet you know right now is in danger because telecoms want to control it. The government is not going to "be in charge" of the Internet. The government is just going to step in to say "ISPs can't mess with the Internet." and that's that. Nothing more.
- toekneebullard, on 03/28/2008, -3/+11The best thing Net Neutrality can do right now is change it's name. We see Net Neutrality as "everyone gets the same internet, it's neutral." The Telcos use the same term as "Keep the government out, keep it Neutral"
People hear "government regulation" and they think it's bad, when the informed know the Government would be making sure the Telcos keep things equal for everyone. Half the time I get confused just telling other people about it.- ziveeman, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3Yeah, half of these retards on Digg have no idea what they're talking about.
- Birdoftruth, on 03/28/2008, -3/+2You included right?
- akiratheoni, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2If you've read ziveeman's comments and understand net neutrality, he actually knows what he's taking about.
- Birdoftruth, on 03/28/2008, -3/+2You included right?
- JustAboutReal, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1only half?
- ziveeman, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3Yeah, half of these retards on Digg have no idea what they're talking about.
- GQCarrick, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1You mean the same Washington Post whose own columnist said that people who defend Net Neutrality should get a life? http://digg.com/tech_news/Washington_Post_Business ...
Here is a link to the direct article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ... - dupswapdrop, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2If they keep screwing this up we will just have to build our own net! And yes it's been done before.
- lewhich, on 03/28/2008, -2/+5At least with Barack we will have a "Free Internet"
- ihavefish, on 03/28/2008, -5/+1Washington Post... worse credibility than Fox News, both are about as credible as they are edible.
- PhantomSoul, on 03/28/2008, -2/+7Fact of the matter is that right now the Internet is largely unregulated, and that many of the large ISP corporations, such as Comcast, Verizon, et al., are trying to create regulations to suit to their advantage. We need to make sure we don't get left out in the cold because of this, but by the same token, we need to make sure we don't over-regulate the internet to the point where the ISP's are no longer willing to provide competitive service to everyone. It's a balancing act, and really, the best thing to do is keep involved and voice your concerns.
- logandurand, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1There is no balance to be made - in a true free market system, there would be no need to force neutrality on ISPs, because they would have incentives to provide a better service to their customers. Right now, we have too much regulation, as local governments grant monopolies to ISPs, removing competition. Do you truly believe that a problem caused by government can be solved by more government?
- beansy, on 03/28/2008, -6/+5i love sucking government ***** which equals a free internet somehow. Digg me
give me a break. NN has been debunked time and again. But you all will bury me for saying so, so let the graveyard begin- onetimer, on 03/28/2008, -3/+4If by "debunked" you mean "argued against with slippery fallacies that AT&T tried to use in the '80s", then yes.
- Azriel7, on 03/28/2008, -2/+2Well, everybody needs to chip in and call your representatives and let them know WHY they need to support Net Neutrality. Remember, these guys are old so you have to explain in simple understandable words why they should support it.
- pentupentropy, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1What we need are more cases like this:
http://www.nospintalk.com/content/view/72/
Judges need to be involved and do things the right way instead of the political way. Judges need to oversee or at least call the ***** that goes on with this stuff once it's brought before them, and the people need the right to bring it before the judges without having a million dollars to get there. - dmp1ce, on 03/28/2008, -3/+4For goodness sake people, stop down digging the people who are against government intervention. They have very valid points.
Get educated!
http://consumerist.com/consumer/net-neutrality/why ...
You all are probably the same type of people who thought that creating the Federal Reserve was a good idea because it would insure your money. We can see how that is going now. - ghsfr33d0m, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1It sure would be nice if the Washington Post would do a little more research and get this right.
"In a complaint filed at the FCC last November, Scott and his staff called for action against Comcast, which admitted it slowed content over its network involving the BitTorrent file-sharing site."
"Under pressure, Comcast yesterday said it would work with BitTorrent to improve the transfer of large files over the network."
Comcast slows down all bittorrent traffic. Any bittorrent traffic, including legit downloads that rely on the bittorrent protocol can and are limited by Comcast's illegal practices.
It seems as if the Washington Post has almost no understanding of how bittorrent works. Bittorrent is not really a file sharing site, they simply host torrent files, they act as a search engine allowing lechers to pull files from a swarm of seeders. No torrent site actually hosts copyrighted content. They don't do anything more illegal then what Google does.- stealthc, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Unless Comcast's terms of service guarantee they won't discriminate about transfer protocols or data sources, there was no breach of contract and Scott has no legitimate complaint. Cry me a river.
- BrendanSheehan, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4Barack Obama is the only presidential nominee who truly, personally gives a ***** about net-neutrality - get him into office and it won't matter a damn who says what, we'll all be safe then. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-mW1qccn8k
- logandurand, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Allow me to restate that comment: Barack Obama is the only presidential nominee who is willing to violate the constitution to get votes - get him into office, and he will force service providers to give up their property rights so that you will feel better.
- maryac, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1There's another FCC net neutrality public hearing April 17 at Stanford U. All bloggers should attend or email testimony. this is a critical issue. http://www.demo.com/community/?q=node/29061
- DiggLive, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2Take note Ron Paul supporters.
- maiku00, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2wheres the Ron Paul brigade to froth about how regulation is evil and we need to give the internet over to corporations in order to insure our American freedoms?
- stealthc, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3Right here. I love the prerennial leftist nonsequitur that unregulation=corporatism. Corporatism/Fascism is an environment of intense regulation. It is through regulations that the government and the corporations married to it maintain control. What do you think the tax code is for except to provide loopholes for favored corporate allies?
Corporations are creations of government. Legal entities whose primary function is to insulate the purveyor of a business from the consequences of his actions. Personally I'd prefer a free market without corporations as we know them at all. People should be free to associate and assign liability however they see fit.
Now pardon me while I froth. The American Idea was that a nation of sovereign, self-reliant individuals was safer, freer and more prosperous than a nation ruled by kings. The idea that we need to go hat in hand to our king (or government) in order get what we want is a relic of Old Europe. It is antiquated thinking that belongs in the Dark Ages.
If the current purveyors of a good are not satisfying your needs, it is an opening for you to satisfy that need instead. In a free market this is possible. If finding a way around Comcast or AT&T sounds infeasible, that is a product of the government obstacles which are already in our way, or a reality check that the problem isn't so bad that there's a tangible market for a solution. In an atmosphere of freedom, nothing is out of reach, all without favors from government. I prefer that to having to go to Congress and ask THAT gang of shaved apes for my freedom.
- stealthc, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3Right here. I love the prerennial leftist nonsequitur that unregulation=corporatism. Corporatism/Fascism is an environment of intense regulation. It is through regulations that the government and the corporations married to it maintain control. What do you think the tax code is for except to provide loopholes for favored corporate allies?
- stealthc, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2NN is a good policy. But if you think government is going to enforce it in any way like what you're imagining, you are dreaming. Remember, this is the federal government we're talking about here. This is the same body that gave us a parade of pointless wars since 1945 and a steady erosion of freedom for even longer. If they are accountable at all, it is to the voters -- the people who gave you 8 years of George W. Bush. Why trust them?
If you use government to get the things you want, others will use it to do things you *don't* want. NN is a good policy, and maybe even a good law, but once you open that door to government involvement with the Internet, the flood of bad laws, and the continuous trend of decreasing freedom will eventually resume. Keep the government OUT of the Internet.
Whatever problems you see on the horizon for the web, focus on where existing government intervention enables the injustices you see. Telecoms enjoying too much of a monopoly? Find regulations to destroy that will open the floodgates of Internet access competition. Increasing freedom increases our potential for good: a positive move. Using force of government out of fear of something bad is a negative move.
In order to get the things I want (neutral web, for example) I prefer to go UP the freedom scale rather than down. - JebBlack, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1The internet is horrible....it isn't very helpful to the LIARS in this country who are getting sick of being called out by american's.
- Scheissen, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1Look at the all the nerds coming to protect their Church, I mean Internet. You only care about them passing Net neutrality because you're the privileged customers with hi-speed data transfer that the poor community doesn't have. Typical aristocracy irrational selfish behavior.
- bonjourmr, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1They're all ***** American ISP's.
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by