Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Government United States

FCC Begins Crafting Net Neutrality Regulations 297

Posted by timothy
from the nomenclature-of-righteousness dept.
ceswiedler writes "The FCC has begun crafting rules for network neutrality. The full proposal hasn't been released yet, but according to their press release (warning, Microsoft Word document) carriers would not be allowed to 'prevent users from sending or receiving the lawful content,' 'running lawful applications,' or 'connecting and using ... lawful devices that do not harm the network.' There will be a three-month period for comments beginning January 14, followed by 2 months for replies, after which the FCC will issue its final guidelines." Reader Adrian Lopez notes that US Senator and former presidential candidate John McCain has introduced legislation that "would keep the FCC from enacting rules prohibiting broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing Internet content and applications." McCain called the proposed net neutrality rules a "government takeover" of the Internet.
Update: 10/24 16:32 GMT by KD : jamie found a Reuters story reporting that the Sunlight Foundation has revealed John McCain to be Congress's biggest recipient of telco money over the last two years — "a total of $894,379..., more than twice the amount taken by the next-largest beneficiary, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Begins Crafting Net Neutrality Regulations

Comments Filter:
  • And who ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by durin (72931) on Friday October 23, 2009 @07:02AM (#29844507)

    decides what is lawful?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Judges? Based on .. the law?

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Judges? Based on .. the law?

        In theory. In practice many times it never reaches a court/judge.

        They may have a guess that you MAY break the law, they don't need a judge decision and they can refuse to carry/throtle your packets. The collateral damage (false positives - innocents) may be considerated acceptable, since almost nobody has the money/knowledge/determination to actually go to court.

        As far as I see it nothing changes - someone just wants to be seen as righteous, political crap.

        • by mea37 (1201159)

          If your biggest complaint about this law is that the realities of the legal system might allow people (or ISP's) to do something that the law means to forbid... then what's your point? Every law is vulnerable in this regard.

          The problem with this regulation isn't the use of the word "lawful". The problem with this regulation is that the government shouldn't be setting network management policies.

          • Re:And who ... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by glebovitz (202712) on Friday October 23, 2009 @10:24AM (#29846463) Journal

            I disagree with your supposition. The government is not setting management policy. The government is trying to prevent carriers from making network management policy that could be used to affect public policy.

            The "government" gives carriers a lot of leeway by protecting them from liability for the content they carry. Once you let them make traffic management decisions, then you open a can of worms that challenge this policy. It is precisely these policy issues that gives the FCC the right to venture into this kind of regulation.

            I am perfectly happy to let Comcast have free reign over network content policy, provided I can sue the shit out of them when they interfere with my content. The same is true for AT&T and other carriers who are driving the opposition to network neutrality.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by poofmeisterp (650750)

          As far as I see it nothing changes - someone just wants to be seen as righteous, political crap.

          Hear, hear!

          It gives another statute that allows for X to sue Y for $1,000,000,000 in collateral damage if they break it. That helps the economy yaaay yaaaaaaaaaaay!!!!! YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!

          *cough*
          I mean.. *gag*

      • Judges? The Law? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DesScorp (410532)

        Judges? Based on .. the law?

        The problem with relying on judges is that you're more likely to get a ruling like Kelo than some noble defense of the Constitution. You know, Kelo, the one that declared, yes, governments can seize your private property and transfer it to other private citizens for "the public good".

        There's a line in the Bible... "Put not your trust in princes"... that I think could easily apply to judges when it comes to your rights and the Constitution.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by piotru (124109)

      More important: Who checks the content for "lawful" or "not lawful"?

      • Re:And who ... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Shakrai (717556) on Friday October 23, 2009 @08:36AM (#29845247) Journal

        More important: Who checks the content for "lawful" or "not lawful"?

        No one, unless they want to go to jail for violating state and federal wiretapping laws. If it's illegal for me to monitor my neighbor's phone calls to determine whether or not he's breaking the law it ought to be illegal for my ISP to monitor my traffic to determine it's legality.

        At least in NYS, this may already be the case:

        250.05 Eavesdropping: A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he unlawfully engages in wiretapping, mechanical overhearing of a conversation, or intercepting or accessing of an electronic communication.
        Eavesdropping is a class E felony.

        From another section: "Unlawfully" means not specifically authorized pursuant to article seven hundred or seven hundred five of the criminal procedure law for the purposes of this section and sections 250.05, 250.10, 250.15, 250.20, 250.25, 250.30 and 250.35 of this article.

        Looks like they can't do it in NYS without a court order. So how exactly does my ISP determine whether or not my traffic is "lawful"?

        • The FCC would probably give the carriers provisions that allow them to check the legality of the data on their networks. Try to sue your carrier for breaking a state law and the carrier will just have the "federal law trumps state law" defense.
          • by Shakrai (717556)

            The FCC would probably give the carriers provisions that allow them to check the legality of the data on their networks. Try to sue your carrier for breaking a state law and the carrier will just have the "federal law trumps state law" defense.

            The FCC can't pass laws, only Congress can do that. And again, how do they check the legality of my data without violating my right to privacy?

            • In order to properly enforce these clauses, the carriers would HAVE to be given the ability to do this, and with the current congress enjoying Big Government (both parties included, mind you), do you think that won't happen?

              This is dangerous stuff.

    • Re:And who ... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by NotBornYesterday (1093817) * on Friday October 23, 2009 @07:25AM (#29844667) Journal
      Indeed. And what does this mean for those crappy terms-of-service "agreements"?

      If my ISP's TOS forbids me from running a webserver from my house over my home internet connection, but there is no government law written to prevent it, it appears at this point that this law would trump the TOS. Of course, given the past actions of large ISPs, I wouldn't be surprised if they ignored the law and disconnected customers based on outdated TOS "agreements" (is it really an agreement if it gets shoved down your throat?) until a multi-year, multi-bazzillion dollar class-action lawsuit forced them to acquiesce.

      But that also begs the question, what legal status will the law give to the ISPs' TOSs? If the law gives them legal effect, what is to prevent ISPs from circumventing net neutrality in their TOS? For example, "by using this service, you agree to surrender your right to host websites, or offer other server-based services, through your ConGlommoISP, Inc. home account, and agree not to hold ConGlommoISP, Inc. liable in the event we disconnect you and charge you a bunch of fees up the wazoo for violating these Terms of Service."

      No, I didn't read the proposed law. Yes, this might be answered in there. I'm waiting for someone who can decipher legalese to do a more informed job than I can.
      • They still have the argument that your server can "harm the network" as described in the summary.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Point taken. I was thinking of the clause that states that an ISP

          "2. Would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the user’s choice;",

          but you are talking about

          "3. Would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from connecting to and using on its network the user’s choice of lawful devices that do not harm the network;".

          I would tend to view a webserver as a lawful application rather than a device, but I suppose the co

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by visualight (468005)

            Based on the summary, it's a completely wrong headed approach that leads to endlessly redefining terms. When this debate first started I thought it was a lot more clear: it's okay to prioritize based on protocols but it's not okay to prioritize based on source/destination.

            Not sure why they're making it so complex now.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              Agreed. However, it seems that "endlessly redefining terms" is at the heart of what government and the judicial system do.

              I still like your version better.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Golddess (1361003)
          So can my utilizing my connection to watch Netflix. Which is why that portion (and others too probably) is poorly worded and should be re-written.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Shakrai (717556)

        is it really an agreement if it gets shoved down your throat?

        Yes, because unless you were dealing with Vito Corleone, nobody forced you to accept it. There's a difference between "take this or leave it, we don't care" and "either your brains or your signature will appear on this contract"

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Painted (1343347)
          Or if you're dealing with pretty much any ISP in Canada. Around here, we have our choice of two, both of whom have various ridiculous policies. So if your choices are:

          a) Provider A, with policy A
          b) Provider B, with policy A
          c) go without internet

          Around here, the politicians would look at the setup and say, "See? The system is working. You have choice! Competition is driving innovation!"- and in fact have said pretty much exactly that when it comes to our cell phone charges, so why would it be any differen
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Yes, but if when all ISPs use more or less the same boilerplate TOS, and given that internet connectivity is not exactly optional for many people these days, your choices are a) get/stay disconnected, or b) take what they give you. It's not always a literal gun to the head that takes choice away.

          I generally abhor government interference in private business, but when a severe power imbalance exists between consumer and provider, there may be justification for leveling the playing field a little. I suppor
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Demonantis (1340557)
        I suspect the TOS could be argued that it is infringing on your rights afforded by law making it null and void. That is why warranties always mention that the law trumps them when it does so it doesn't nullify the agreement. Plus there is some case law like the My Space case that got thrown out. Of course I am just guessing so I might be wrong.
    • Re:And who ... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ircmaxell (1117387) on Friday October 23, 2009 @07:34AM (#29844737) Homepage
      Forget the lawful part. Who decides what's damaging to the network! Could an ISP suddenly declare that more than 1% usage of a pipe over the course of a month is considered damaging?

      AT&T already does it for their mobile broadband cards (According to them 3gb per month is excessive. So 3gb/month over a 2mbit line (It is more, I know) is only 0.45%)...
      • by IBBoard (1128019)

        That was my thought exactly with that phrasing. As it is all of the web hosts who offer the impossible (i.e. limited or extremely high limits for low costs) have a "if you're impacting performance we'll kick you off" condition. Surely "impacting performance" is 'damaging' to the network and its service, therefore all use is effectively damaging it to some degree.

  • McCain (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jaysyn (203771) <jaysyn+slashdot&gmail,com> on Friday October 23, 2009 @07:03AM (#29844509) Homepage Journal

    As usual McCain has no clue what he's going on about, surprise, surprise.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by jimbolauski (882977)
      Actually McCain has a point, the FCC has no authority to regulate the internet. The internet is and has been doing just fine without government intervention adding government regulation into the mix will stifle innovation, the little companies the net-neutrality is designed for will not invest in infrastructure they don't have the capital and the evil large companies will have to cut infrastructure investments to compete with the small companies who use their infrastructure for free. The Good Intentions o
      • Re:McCain (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 23, 2009 @08:04AM (#29845017)

        Uh hey, stupid? The telcos barely invest in infrastructure as it is, and they've grifted over 200 billion from us in public money and rate hikes for upgrades they never even planned to deliver. Those 'little companies', which include content providers, add value to the infrastructure, which is kind of the point. (But I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's probably way over your head.) Competition between ISPs would encourage them to actually invest some of the obscene goddamn mountains of money they've been siphoning off of us into their networks, which is something that we honestly don't have now. They have no incentive to innovate! They have no incentive to even try, and nothing to prevent them from hike-hike-hiking those rates without delivering anything better in return for it. (Just look at Comcast, sweet Jesus.) Also, look at how much it costs to place a landline international call here versus, uh, anywhere else in the industrialized world. We're so far behind the curve it's not even funny.

        I'll keep my unintended consequences. Thanks to that free market bullshit you're smoking, I'm already used to it!

        • Innovation? (Score:3, Informative)

          by rnturn (11092)

          I used to see a heck of a lot more of that when there were easily a dozen or more local ISPs offering Internet access in my area. Once the telcos were allowed to cut them out of the picture, innovation has become non-existent.

      • by ratboy666 (104074) <fred_weigel@NoSPaM.hotmail.com> on Friday October 23, 2009 @08:06AM (#29845027) Homepage Journal

        Sure, those "large companies" can (and did) cut their infrastructure investments... but those investments were paid by public money.

        You are not legally allowed to dig your own cables -- Easements were given by the government to the incumbents.

        So, tell me again how the government ISN'T involved?

        Personally, I don't like to bail on something I have already paid for, but I don't need the Internet "24/7" that much. I can easily deal with "web by mail" and UUCP, or even data transfer via "truck of tapes" again. Strangely enough, if hackers go that route, AND we control the "good stuff" -- that is, the good pirated music/videos and technical information, the "Internet" will go down that path instead.

        Which puts the attempted controls by the "other" cartel at risk. Basically, the content cartel wants a centralized Internet, if there is an Internet at all. The delivery cartel wants to put road-blocks into that centralized Internet, to maximize their profits. The hackers are willing to Balkanize the Internet, screwing both of the cartels.

        The "end-users" really want the product the hackers produce.

        You tell me how this plays out...

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by cheshiremoe (1448979)
        The FCC is already regulating the companies that provide internet infrastructure. Telecoms and Cable companies tubes carry voice and video over the same hardware/physical layer that data does and that is Regulated by the FCC. Was it not the FCC that fined Comcast for playing man in the middle and sending stop packets to torrent users.

        Just because the internet has been fine so far does not mean that it will be fine in the future... As the internet provides more and better competition to the traditiona
      • Re:McCain (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Jaysyn (203771) <jaysyn+slashdot&gmail,com> on Friday October 23, 2009 @08:07AM (#29845043) Homepage Journal

        the FCC has no authority to regulate the internet

        Sillyness, Dave. That's like saying the FAA has no authority to regulate airplanes, only airports.

        The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.

        • Authority comes from the entities mandate in law, not its title. Does the FCCs mandate extend to the internet?
      • are you stupid ? (Score:3, Informative)

        by unity100 (970058)

        the corporations dont want to leave internet 'as it is'. they want to CHANGE it, so they will be able to run their networks as cable networks. this is why you need net neutrality rules. net neutrality rules are no different than rules that govern the highways -> no highway administration can decide who passes over the road or charge any traffic according to source, not the type and amount.

        get a fucking brain and realize what's going on before purporting knee jerk alan greenspanist comments.

        http://tech.sl [slashdot.org]

  • Drudge (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ShakaUVM (157947) on Friday October 23, 2009 @07:12AM (#29844561) Homepage Journal

    This article was linked on the Drudge Report as "Julius [Caeser, implied] wants to regulate the internet."

    I consider it, rather, a common carrier issue, akin to the situation we had with the railways 100 years ago - they were able to leverage their power over transit into other areas. You know, like how Microsoft used its OS dominance to destroy a rival in another field (web browsers). While all the networks are crying out that its a solution in need of a problem, the whole issue was raised because the telco's all started talking excitedly about how they could do all sorts of shady things, like double-dipping for bandwidth charges, that network neutrality would stop.

    I'm a libertarian, and I support net neutrality, since oligopolies are market failures (see for example the price of cell phones in America over time). The actual implementation? Seems to actually have too many loopholes to me. They can, for example, tier service in order to deal with "net congestion". Hah.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by moeinvt (851793)

      I'm libertarian leaning, and after much internal struggle, I also concluded that I support the "concept" of network neutrality.

      It's extremely unfortunate that the only institution in the U.S. with enough power to enforce something like that is the Federal Government. With that in mind, I do not trust any "implementation" of network neutrality that the D.C. crowd will come up with. They may give a piece of legislation a nice label, but you can be sure that in the end, the big money special interests will g

    • I commented on this before. [slashdot.org]

      Basically, I'm more frightened by the current administration's plans for "what to do about the Internet" than I am the ISP's plans. Especially when you start finding "dangerous speech" on the Internet, and classifying certain groups as "hate groups" just because you disagree with them. For instance, the Southern Poverty Law Center has now decided that the Oath Keepers organization [oathkeepers.org] is a is a hate group. [splcenter.org] What's to prevent the FCC from declaring that "hate speech" is not "lega

  • Ha! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jaysyn (203771) <jaysyn+slashdot&gmail,com> on Friday October 23, 2009 @07:20AM (#29844607) Homepage Journal

    Oh I love this part.

    "McCain protested the FCC's proposal that wireless broadband providers be included in the net neutrality rules. The wireless industry has "exploded over the past 20 years due to limited government regulation," McCain said in the statement."

    Wireless has exploded in the past 20 years because the damn technology has only become feasable for mass market computing in the past 20 years.

    • Re:Ha! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by QuantumRiff (120817) on Friday October 23, 2009 @08:05AM (#29845021)

      With incredibly stiff government regulation.. The companies screamed and moaned about E911, but now, they have apps that take advantage of knowing where you are. (and tout a cell as a safety device when traveling).

      They screamed about number portability. yet they now all encourage you to port your number to them. (Would the iphone have been as successfull if everyone had to ditch their old numbers?)

    • Regulation (Score:3, Insightful)

      by spikenerd (642677)
      I hate regulation. I'm so sick of Comcast regulating my Internet habits that I want my government to regulate Comcast. Net Neutrality is the least-regulation possible.
  • Yeah. Next thing you know the feds will be trying to take over medicare.

  • Even though .doc format remains an abysmally poor choice for a document produced by a government agency for public distribution, the days when non-Windows users would be inconvenienced by that are long gone.

  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Friday October 23, 2009 @07:25AM (#29844675) Journal
    Why is FCC doing its press releases in a proprietary vendor lock in format? Haven't they heard of ODF? We should demand FCC and all government agencies to release their documents in a vendor neutral or vendor agnostic format.
  • "Lawful uses" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by surmak (1238244) on Friday October 23, 2009 @07:45AM (#29844835)

    I wonder how they plan to enforce the "lawful uses"/"lawful content" clause. That could turn out to be a hole big enough to drive a truck through. What if the providers say that the only way to insure that legal content is available to to limit access to the few sites that they have vetted and partnered with.

    I can fully understand giving ISPs the right a prevent DDOS and other attacks on the network, but the enforcement of what is lawful should be limited to that, and not be a license or directive to police the sites and protocols allowed on a network.

  • The proposed rules only apply to "lawful content", "lawful applications", "lawful services", and "lawful devices". I'm not sure what I think about this. By way of analogy, do we have laws for our public highway system that limits our use of the road based on what content we carry in our vehicles? Is our use of the roadway illegal if we intend to use something we're carrying for an evil purpose or application? I can see where my vehicle (device) might be unlawfully configured (over the maximum weight lim

    • ...and only the Police with reasonable suspicion can stop and search your vehicle ... they cannot ask the highways agency to blanket search every vehicle for them ..Try doing the same on the phone ... the police need a court order for a wiretap to find that you are using the telephone system to do illegal activities, it is illegal for the phone company to tap your line with a court order ...

    • "lawful applications", "lawful services" and also be used for unlawful things.

  • the "government takeover" of the Internet (by the way Internet is an entity larger than USA and its government), by government takeover of the FCC, and indirectly government takeover of the Internet by disallowing anyone to prevent any illegal practices that might ensue.

  • "Allowed to throttle content that is not legal". That loophole is big enough to pilot the Titanic through. That could easily be interpreted to block everything from p2p traffic to VOIP. This loophole would flat kill P2P in entirety and severely hurt VOIP and all with the ISP's having governments blessings. Many things are legal in one country and not in another.

    This loophole needs removed in entirety for all such rules, I can guarantee you that any type of traffic you can think of is illegal, somewhere (Dut

    • Sheesh. You guess that ISPs are going to be allowed to block all of VOIP because one call is illegal? They'll have Google & Skype on their case in the blink of an eye. Kill p2p? Possibly, but given that currently they are allowed to throttle whatever they like, the fact that p2p still exists means they really don't care. It's even better: when an ISP starts to determine what is legal and what is illegal on their network, they will quite likely lose common carrier status, and can be hold accountable for
  • ...concidering the ISP legal-slime logic:

    We're not supposed to drop 'legal' connections but we still don't want the high traffic users. We'll filter all high traffic connections. Configure the sandvine filters to increase latency 50% on P2P connections and website x. When the high traffic users complain say 'we're entitled to filter to remove 'illegal' connections. When they cry 'net neutrality' politely inform them that we comply with the rules because we aren't 'preventing users from sending or receiv
  • McCain called the proposed net neutrality rules a "government takeover" of the Internet.

    Somebody wake up grandpa.

  • Mr. McCain? (Score:2, Troll)

    by Pollux (102520)

    McCain called the proposed net neutrality rules a "government takeover" of the Internet.

    Mr. McCain, since the government pretty much invented the internet [wikipedia.org], please feel free to step in occasionally to make sure capitalism doesn't drive it back into the ground.

  • Are We There Yet? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mindbrane (1548037) on Friday October 23, 2009 @08:16AM (#29845113) Journal

    I was one of those quintessential brats in the back seat of my parent's car mindlessly chanting the eternal question, "Are we there yet?". When addressing questions that incorporate government oversight of national infrastructures that are run by near monopolies there are no destination solutions. There are tentative, context sensitive solutions. The answer isn't unregulated free enterprise, nor is it heavy handed government control. IMHO the answer is the solution offered by mature democracies that have in place the institutions and laws that permit tentative solutions to be put in place then publicly monitored and honed.

    What works in our modern, mature democracies are the checks and balances, supplemented by free speech, and, government and business oversight, that allow us to find a workable middle ground. I'm a liberal but I'm always glad for the common sense conservatives who try to limit government interference. Solving social problems by way of democratic institutions is a messy, contentious affair but, I think, modern history has amply demonstrated that the current crop of mature democracies are the best way to go and it's the somewhat efficient functioning of our institutions that allow us succeed more so than does any other form of government. We succeed because we have in place institutions that allow for open debate and venues to address things when they go wrong. We aren't there yet, but then we aren't ever gonna be so we might as well enjoy the ride given that we've got the best vehicle on the road.

    just my loose change in a contentious debate

  • "'connecting and using ... lawful devices that do not harm the network.'"So, anything with a network card must be switched off, then? Malware, poor configuration, malicious intent all turn a connected device into a DoS device.

  • by bleh-of-the-huns (17740) on Friday October 23, 2009 @08:38AM (#29845279)

    Let the Telcos choose (this does not apply to cable unfortunately)...

    If they want to keep the protections that common carrier status affords them, then they must support net neutrality and remain essentially a dumb pipe. They used public land and massive tax incentives and subsidies to deploy the initial infrastructure (with the exception of FIOS, which I believe Verizon is eating the total cost, but still using public land, and in some cases tax breaks).

    Or, if they do not want to implement neutrality in anyway, and they want to double dip on charging for bandwidth, discriminate on the types of traffic so that their own services do not have to compete etc, strip them of their protections, let every content company, every person who has been libeled, every politician who wants to shut down $x type of service/product/content and what not sue the telcos and ISPs into oblivion.

    Seriously, the only reason telcos have protections is because they were just the intermediary carrying traffic between end points, and could not be held liable for what those entities did. But if they want to start manipulating the types of traffic and data, then they should be held liable for whatever that data contains.

    For the record, I agree with the principles, I may not neccesarily agree with how the gov will implement them. Also, I did not vote, I was taught to vote my believes, not the lesser of 2 evils, and honestly, there is very little difference between them from my viewpoint.

    How about this.. we have a public referendum on what the public wants. Sure the public can be swayed, but atleast the public as a whole will have some visibility in front of the politicians, as it is right now, the politicians only real view is of whatever the lobbying entities put in front of them.. he who has the money makes the rules I guess.

  • by visualight (468005) on Friday October 23, 2009 @08:48AM (#29845385) Homepage

    Robert Mcdowell:
    "Consumers are telling the marketplace that they don't want networks that operate merely as 'dumb pipes,'" he said. "Sometimes they want the added value and efficiency that comes from intelligence inside networks as well."

    I wish I could interview politicians, "You just made that shit up didn't you?"

  • just what do you expect from the republicans. EVERY kind of move they made to control people's lives are disguised as 'for freedom'.

    why the fuck arent highways being sold to whomever bids the highest for them, and they are let to discriminate against any and whomever they like and charge them whatever they like, for 'free market' and freedom ? why the fuck all the conservatives stop dead, when asked why arent we doing this ? wouldnt private companies run roads better ? isnt it scuttling investment to not al

  • by unity100 (970058) on Friday October 23, 2009 @09:15AM (#29845679) Homepage Journal

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-14-2009/rape-nuts [thedailyshow.com]

    it has come to this point. because, you let those fucking republicans yelp on and on about 'letting businesses be'.

    net neutrality is no different. its the freedom of internet being legalized. yet, same bastards oppose it with the same old barking.

  • With comments like these:

    http://blog.openinternet.gov/?p=1&cpage=128 [openinternet.gov]

    I think it's game over for net neutrality in the USA.

  • Once you establish that the FCC has the power to regulate the internet, even if the initial regulation is something you approve of, you're likely to find they start using that newly established power in ways you most decidedly do not approve of. Calling in the government to deal with something that is really only a potential (rather than actual) problem at this point is liable to end up being a long term loss for internet freedom.

Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari

Working...