politikwiz

Giuliani and Huckabee seem to be honest with their position on issues. If Republicans want to retain the White House next year, either Giulani or Huckabee should be nominated for the Nov'08 polls

Zyphlin

Wow, congratulations. You apparently no nothing about Net Neutrality OR the PATRIOT Act.

Net Neutrality is trying to fight AGAINST the beginning of a regulated internet. Net Neutralities entire purpose is to make it so that ISP's can not speed up, or slow down, connections to specific sites, servers, etc based on the fact that that particular site or service is also with their ISP or not on their ISP.

IE...take Cox Communications, Comcast, and this site debate politics. And lets say hypothetically Debate Politics is hosted on a line connected to the internet through Cox.

With Net Neutrality, people who are on Cox or Comcast should both be able to access the Debate Politics sight at whatever speed they've bought their general internet for.

WITHOUT net neutrality, and trying to go to what the Comm. companies would like us to go, it could be distinctly different. Cox could make it so that any source not coming from Cox can only connect to Debate Politics at a 56k bandwidth. Thus, Cox Customers would be connecting wonderfully but Comcast customers, no matter how fast of internet they're paying for, would only get the date from the site at 56k due to the filter put on by Cox.

Likewise, lets say Comcast then got the rights to YouTube. Theoritically, going by what the Comm companies want and by not going with Net Neutrality, Comcast could then charge people not on their service connecting to YouTube a fee to gain it at the full speed.

Basically, without Net Neutrality, the internet becomes partianed by the telecommunication companies, with them having the ability to decide who can access what information at what speeds.



LIKEWISE


You would likely be astounded if you actually READ the PATRIOT Act and studied it. A vast majority of the PATRIOT Act is upgrading decades old telecommunication laws to get it up to speed with Cell Phones, Email, Instant Messaging, Chat Room, Message Boards, and even pagers. There are a good bit of questionable material in the PATRIOT Act, but the majority of actual scholars that have heavily researched it tend to come to the conclussion that the vast majority (generally in my studies I've seen it quoted in the 80-90% range) of the PATRIOT Act is legitimate, useful, upgrades to decades old laws that fix significant issues with our legal structure.

rivrrat

That was kind of my take on Net Neutrality as well.

__________________

ARealConservative

The network Neutrality Act is a regulation on the internet. End of story.

Open up your eyes. I can't believe th idiocy in the world today. This is legislation giving government power to regulate the internet.

I can't believe how stupid you are.

Let's dumb it down and show how foolish you are. You fear that big business is going to clamp down the internet so their content is featured. And your solution is to go to the federal government to protect you from big business.

Guess who is in control of the federal government there slick?

Now fricking get a clue.

ARealConservative

Ask yourself why the Religious Right have signed on to endorse this legislation.

Kandahar

And why SHOULDN'T they be allowed to do that?

And if there's no law mandating that, they'll lose subscribers if they try to cheat them on their connection speed. The market solves the problem.

If it's the web host controlling it, then people won't let Cox host their websites anymore. They'll find someone who allows everyone to access their websites at a reasonable speed.

Then YouTube would lose money because people stop visiting the site, and would shop around for another web host. Problem solved.

This hasn't even begun to happen, and there's no evidence that it will. It's an example of a few activists trying to propose a solution for a problem that doesn't even exist.

__________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams

Zyphlin

Because this goes broad spectrum. As you say "Get a clue". Groups on the right and left BOTH endorse this. yeah, the religious right (as if that's an orgnization, riiiiight. I'll go join religious right united ) support it, as does MoveOn.Org.

Because the "pipes" they've built have been built on a large chunk of public money given over by the government to them, with the intent of them to form a high speed network for the population to use. The internet as it is now is a great tool for freedom, the ability to assemble as a nation despite being hundreds of miles apart, amongst other things. To allow further regulation by the telecomms to regulate it from being an open, multi-way communication network to something pieced together as they see fit is a detriment to the country.

Except for the fact that you're assuming all, or even most, telecomms are available in particular areas. I'm in northern va, right next to a major airport, just outside a major metropolitan area. I have the ability to choose ONE of the five biggest cable providers in the United States, and that's not counting the ones below those big 5. Its a monopoly for the most part as far as what telecomm companies have what areas so its not an open market.

If those other people are actually possible in their area. On top of that, doesn't do a thing if all the major telecomm's end up doing the same thing. Unless everyone is going to join just one telecomm provider, which then you get an even bigger monopoly than you have now.

The big benefit of YouTube right now is its accessible by everyone that has access to the internet at this time. That way, by putting it in a singular place you can reach theoretically anyone that access the net. Its that theory over all that makes the net so useful. The error on your assumption is the fact that somehow only one telecomm will do this type of thing, instead of it being a wide spread thing. Changing web hosts simply means you have a different segment of the market, while still likely having a large amount being hindered.

Check out the Net Neutrality thread in Science & Technology. There's already statements by the telecomm's pointing to this type of thing being what they hope for, as well as examples of things they've tried already in regulating those that use their stuff.

Its people realizing that the Net, as it is now, is a useful and vital tool for this country and not wanting to see it go down the road of TV, Radio, print media...

NewDemocrat

I support John Edwards.

__________________
"I like that about the Republicans; the evidence does not faze them, they are not bothered at all by the facts." ~ Bill Clinton

ronpaulvoter

Ron Paul does NOT support a national ban on abortion; he is just personally opposed to it. He said that it is the right of each state to decide its own abortion policies.

On stem cell research, he is opposed to using tax money for it. He does NOT support a ban on it. He just believes that medical research in general should be left up to the private sector.

Network neutrality is a buzzword for regulating the internet and probably other communication as well. It would allow government to FORCE users to take or not take certain actions that it liked or didn't like. It would be a clear violation of free speech.


We need to consider the most important issue of all--CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT--i.e. limited government. Right now our government is far too big and oppressive for anybody who values individual liberty.

INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY is the most precious resource we have. PROTECT IT.

Joby

Why him, in particuliar?

if you don't mind me asking, of course.

__________________
When it's advocated that the government help the poor, it's un-American socialism.

When the government helps millionaires, it's to save the American dream.