3 ms·

It really is. We will sacrificing quality for the ability for everyone to have access. In addition to this, I'm not sure I want the government with the abilit

It really is. We will sacrificing quality for the ability for everyone to have access. In addition to this, I'm not sure I want the government with the ability to control free speech on the Internet. I predict that if it is classified as a utility, there will be additional provisions that will erode our freedom of speech on the Internet. There are already proposals to make it illegal to parody things like presidential candidates.

imgabe 12y ago
That's just FUD. Net Neutrality has nothing to do with the government controlling the content on the Internet. It calls for the Internet service to be classified as a common carrier, as the phone service has been for decades. I don't see anyone concerned about the government interfering with their freedom of speech over the phone.
drivingmenuts 12y ago
> There are already proposals to make it illegal to parody things like presidential candidates. If we dispense with Net Neutrality, parodying presidential candidates (or some other form of speech) will be less possible due to lack of access, without passing any laws. All traffic is either equal, in which case we need to declare that the Internet has no bias and make it stick thru regulation, or we decide that some forms of traffic are more important than others, then decide which traffic is more important. You can't have it both ways. I can guarantee, however, that no one will ever agree which traffic more important. Well, until someone starts shouting about "patriotism" and it's "for the children". It's pretty clear that the market just wants to milk people for all the money it can. Which would be fine if it did so by charging those with more resources more money for more access. But it's also clear that the market is all in favor of charging those with fewer resources more, because they have fewer resources to defend themselves against predation.

imgabe 12y ago

That's just FUD. Net Neutrality has nothing to do with the government controlling the content on the Internet. It calls for the Internet service to be classified as a common carrier, as the phone service has been for decades. I don't see anyone concerned about the government interfering with their freedom of speech over the phone.

drivingmenuts 12y ago

> There are already proposals to make it illegal to parody things like presidential candidates. If we dispense with Net Neutrality, parodying presidential candidates (or some other form of speech) will be less possible due to lack of access, without passing any laws. All traffic is either equal, in which case we need to declare that the Internet has no bias and make it stick thru regulation, or we decide that some forms of traffic are more important than others, then decide which traffic is more important. You can't have it both ways. I can guarantee, however, that no one will ever agree which traffic more important. Well, until someone starts shouting about "patriotism" and it's "for the children". It's pretty clear that the market just wants to milk people for all the money it can. Which would be fine if it did so by charging those with more resources more money for more access. But it's also clear that the market is all in favor of charging those with fewer resources more, because they have fewer resources to defend themselves against predation.