3 ms·

What doesn't make sense? The only way to guarantee the free and open nature of the internet is to keep the government out of it. Once the government builds an

What doesn't make sense? The only way to guarantee the free and open nature of the internet is to keep the government out of it. Once the government builds an apparatus to enforce net neutrality it's role will gradually expand to start controlling the internet. An argument can be made that government funding of teclos should come with certain restrictions - those restrictions must be present when the money is doled out. Government creating problems in order to solve them, is an easy way to further their involvement. Additionally, I believe the Pauls would be against the funding.

lclarkmichalek 14y ago
I think you should probably remove the absolutes from your comment. It may come to pass that net neutrality legislation morphs into something larger, but suggesting that it is a given is just an attempt to dismiss the entire argument on that topic. Saying that keeping governments out is the only way to safeguard the open internet is stupid; many other interests are at play, and many commercial organisations would definitely like to see the current status modified in their favor, which may or may not be good for net neutrality, and related issues.
pvidler 14y ago
If the government gives up any and all control over the internet, then they simply cede it to the ISPs and carriers; they win by default simply because our access must go through them. I don't want to be paying extra to access certain popular services, or to be rate-limited while accessing a service that my own ISP owns an alternative to. And that's only the tip of the iceberg. That said, I can benefit in some areas that would no longer exist with government-enforced net neutrality. For example, here in the UK BT offers an unlimited broadband deal with 'exclusions' -- without them I suspect there would have to be bandwidth caps: "We want to give everyone the best possible speeds at all times, so we only manage speeds on P2P (peer-to-peer) file sharing networks at peak times. All other broadband use isn't affected – and there's no limit to how much you can download." -- from the products and services page on BT.com.

lclarkmichalek 14y ago

I think you should probably remove the absolutes from your comment. It may come to pass that net neutrality legislation morphs into something larger, but suggesting that it is a given is just an attempt to dismiss the entire argument on that topic. Saying that keeping governments out is the only way to safeguard the open internet is stupid; many other interests are at play, and many commercial organisations would definitely like to see the current status modified in their favor, which may or may not be good for net neutrality, and related issues.

pvidler 14y ago

If the government gives up any and all control over the internet, then they simply cede it to the ISPs and carriers; they win by default simply because our access must go through them. I don't want to be paying extra to access certain popular services, or to be rate-limited while accessing a service that my own ISP owns an alternative to. And that's only the tip of the iceberg. That said, I can benefit in some areas that would no longer exist with government-enforced net neutrality. For example, here in the UK BT offers an unlimited broadband deal with 'exclusions' -- without them I suspect there would have to be bandwidth caps: "We want to give everyone the best possible speeds at all times, so we only manage speeds on P2P (peer-to-peer) file sharing networks at peak times. All other broadband use isn't affected – and there's no limit to how much you can download." -- from the products and services page on BT.com.