tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3937616382229589621.post4112559833094088178..comments2019-05-22T06:06:18.626-07:00Comments on Stars and Stripes in Distress: Net Neutrality?A Concerned Citizenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14198945795329210089noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3937616382229589621.post-89814603396660260792010-12-21T15:35:02.720-08:002010-12-21T15:35:02.720-08:00" the internet providers will find ways to mo..." the internet providers will find ways to monetize speed and access. " This is what it's all about. Creating a two tiered system where you pay out the nose for top speed. You can fully expect ISPs to favor content they provide over that of non-providing competitors.<br /><br />But the biggest boon to the big ISPs in this ruling is the absence of rules for wireless internet. This is the undiscovered country of the internet. This is where they will make shit tons of money in the future. And the prices believe you me will affect people unequally. NO BUENO.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3937616382229589621.post-19062537116951676812010-12-21T10:01:32.367-08:002010-12-21T10:01:32.367-08:00The internet is an economic utility. It's use...The internet is an economic utility. It's used to make money. Left completely unregulated it will turn into a closed marketplace where content accessible to consumers is determined by the large, monied players (like film, radio and television). And, as Franken points out, this will inevitably lead to trouble when the corporate gatekeepers want to play dirty against political competition. <br /><br />Neutrality is a must. If it takes a form of (stronger) regulation to accomplish, so be it.Brookshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06836010218299051619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3937616382229589621.post-75090219727518593742010-12-20T19:37:42.587-08:002010-12-20T19:37:42.587-08:00According to Wired, differentiated costs are alrea...According to <a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/12/carriers-net-neutrality-tiers/" rel="nofollow">Wired</a>, differentiated costs are already in the works... I would understand if Internet providers wanted to charge more for higher bandwidth or speed (which they already do). But what they're trying to get with this, is to have the ability to control a user's access to different sources. That, to me, sounds like a slippery slope toward censorship. Or at least the ability to discriminate against certain websites (cof, cof, WikiLeaks, cof, cof).<br />Now, the conversation about how to regulate is completely different. To be honest, I do not know what is being voted on, so let me go read some more on this...Inêshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17022329723037993348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3937616382229589621.post-8419257554842942062010-12-20T13:47:13.873-08:002010-12-20T13:47:13.873-08:00Would are free speech be assured if it wasn't ...Would are free speech be assured if it wasn't explicitly stated?Ultimatemeaninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07031049743305126603noreply@blogger.com