Forums → WEPR → Net Neutrality
| 31 | 5437 |
Net neutrality, do we need it?
The internet does cost money, but after you pay for it, what you do on the internet is up to YOU. It is feared that service providers will start to control what sites you may or may not go to. It is also feared that these companies may start to charge people for the amount of bandwidth they use rather than have a flat fee.
Net neutrality sounds fair, but is it really? The FCC, responsible for censorship and fining people who slip nipples and profanities on live TV, will be the enforcement of net neutrality.
What do you think? Do we need net neutrality laws now, or should we wait until we actually see some more problems? Should we ever enforce net neutrality laws? Do you think the FCC would allow the internet to govern itself or do you feel the FCC will censor certain sites?
- 31 Replies
I'm not sure what happened above.
Wouldn't placing restrictions on the internet, in a sense, violate our rights to freedom of speech?
I'm sure the law is grey in that area and there are loop holes they could exploit.
Net Neutrality is a joke, what they are really after is control.
Pretty much, I can see Hollywood being happy since they could practically neutralize pirating that way though that would stop people using torrent networks for useful things too like companies putting stuff up there so they wouldn't have to put strain on they're servers.
I dunno if we NEED it but i do get a lil angry when websites i go to get blocked and i can no longer use em.
We are boned.
So yeah, looks like we're pretty much SOL.
Here's the problem with price control. Sometimes, prices need to rise or a company either goes into debt or they lack the funding to better their product. Most companies do not want to upset their customers, so instead of raising all their prices, they created better plans that cost more money for those who CHOOSE to buy them. Sometimes, they don't, but that's generally okay.
How often do you see a product that starts out cheap, then becomes super expensive due to companies being "greedy"? To be honest, not very much at all. Most products and services out there become cheaper. The ones that do become more expensive are generally compensating for inflation or you end up with a better quality product.
Now, here's the kicker. The FCC is afraid that companies will start to bribe businesses. Of course, this is a crime. It's not like the government never does this!
Happy Holidays everyone, enjoy the censorship!
Under the rules, the blocking of legal content would be banned
As long as it is legal, the FCC won't touch it. Oh wait, the FCC can create rules to deem content as illegal or as an exception to the rule. I predict this happening a lot.
And America says it isn't becoming a police state. Hm...censorship of the internet is the first step I'd say. Censoring the internet is just plain wrong. Charing to visit a website that was once free (in a sense, once you paid your service provider) is also wrong. I mean why is the government so afraid of allowing the tools of education into the hands of the masses? That's how I view the internet, a tool of education. Sure it entertains as well, but the amount of information you can learn from it is astounding.
Because the government doesn't want the American people to realize how their country is turning socialist, bit by bit.
-_-' Socialism is NOT bad. But, seeing as you probably have a Republican deffinition of socialism then I suppose you think Canada is Nazi Nation, because last time I checked Canada is more socialist than America.
But net nuetrality has nothing to DO with socialism! This is just a plot by big business to take control of something they want. Oh sure we can call it "the government" but the FCC is, at it's heart a business.
Net neutrality also allows big business to step in and make some cash while telling the little man to fend for themself. Does that sound very LIBERAL to you?
I mean why is the government so afraid of allowing the tools of education into the hands of the masses?
I doubt the FCC will censor information as a way to keep people dumb. When I say censorship, I mean censoring sites such as thepiratebay and other download sites as a way to prevent pirating. I also believe the FCC will censor anything they find immoral or offensive.
I also believe the FCC would have a much easier time taking down sites such as wikileaks.
This is just a plot by big business to take control of something they want. Oh sure we can call it "the government" but the FCC is, at it's heart a business.
I'm pretty sure the FCC is a regulatory committee, not a business.
Although the FCC is a regulatory committee, it does work like a business. In fact, all regulatory committees work like businesses.
Because the government doesn't want the American people to realize how their country is turning socialist, bit by bit.
I doubt the FCC will censor cites and people due to political views, but I'll answer this question anyway.
The government pushes programs that are unreliable and expensive. When we fall into economic troubles due to these programs, the government blames big businesses and tells the people that they should trust government policies since big businesses are obviously taking advantage of them. When the people support these policies, the government provides them with a system that remains unreliable. However, because the people rely on these failing systems, they would rather the government keep control over the systems than get rid of them.
Net neutrality also allows big business to step in and make some cash while telling the little man to fend for themself. Does that sound very LIBERAL to you?
Well, yes.
The rules highlight a huge divide between those who say the Internet should be allowed to flourish without regulation and those who say the power of big high-speed Internet providers like Comcast Corp to discriminate against other players needs to be restrained.
Under the rules, the blocking of legal content would be banned but providers like Comcast and Verizon Communications can "reasonably" manage their networks and charge consumers based on levels of Internet usage.
Wireless carriers like Sprint Nextel Corp, and Deutsche Telekom AG T-Mobile would get slightly more discretion to manage their networks but could not block access to websites, or to competing voice and video applications.
The rules are expected to go into effect early next year but FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said consumers should expect few changes.
"In many respects, this is about preserving the freedom and openness of the Internet that has worked for many years," he told reporters after the FCC met in an open meeting.
-Divided FCC adopts Internet traffic rules
Basically, net neutrality is a way to combat companies who will try to provide only certain services as a way to force people into buying their "full packages".
Approved by Genachowski and his two fellow Democrats, the rules were quickly condemned by Republicans, and some companies, as excessive and unnecessary.
Yeah, this does sound like a liberal policy. Restrict companies by giving control to the government as a way to "rotect the consumers". It can't really become much clearer than that.
Net neutrality also allows big business to step in and make some cash while telling the little man to fend for themself.
Well, not really. Net neutrality is trying to prevent this from happening, even though it's not happening right now with the internet. However, I disagree with the statement you made in general because businesses need the "little man" to make a profit.
Businesses don't profit by telling the little man to fend for himself. It's quite the opposite. Businesses profit by telling the little man to depend on the company's goods.
This is just a plot by big business to take control of something they want. Oh sure we can call it "the government" but the FCC is, at it's heart a business.
I would also like to add that the government should not get involved with business. More regulations means more involvement with businesses. Why else would companies pay politicians who only wish to make more regulations? Because these companies want to make sure the politicians don't regulate their business and if possible pay them to regulate their competitors.
I also believe the FCC will censor anything they find immoral or offensive.
I highly doubt that. Why? Because of the sheer number of such things on the internet, the FCC would literally have to block individual links, because some sites may have one image that's 'offensive'.
You must be logged in to post a reply!