Linked by Howard Fosdick on Tue 8th Nov 2011 18:13 UTC
Internet & Networking According to Wired, "The Senate is likely to vote within days on a measure that would undo net-neutrality rules adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 2010, even though they've yet to go into effect... The House passed a similar measure, but Obama has threatened to veto it. It was not immediately clear whether the Senate has the necessary votes for passage." If you care about net neutrality, now is a good time to head on over to Save The Internet and get involved in this issue.
Order by: Score:
Comment by marcp
by marcp on Tue 8th Nov 2011 18:46 UTC
marcp
Member since:
2007-11-23

Well, the author of this article seem to forgot about "U.S-net neutrality" phrase.

We - citizens of the world - don't care about U.S law as long as U.S doesn't try to impose it on us.
[Facts to consider: full body scanners.]

United States of America is just one of the countries in the world. They should not have claims bigger than others have.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by marcp - "impose it on us"
by jabbotts on Tue 8th Nov 2011 19:21 UTC in reply to "Comment by marcp"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

"as long as U.S doesn't try to impose it on us. "

But, that's the real issue right there isn't it. One of America's biggest exports of recent has been bad laws.

Edited 2011-11-08 19:24 UTC

Reply Score: 9

RE: Comment by marcp
by umccullough on Tue 8th Nov 2011 21:48 UTC in reply to "Comment by marcp"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

We - citizens of the world - don't care about U.S law as long as U.S doesn't try to impose it on us.


If there's one thing wikileaks leaked state department cables have shown us - the U.S. is VERY much involved in "helping" the rest of the world make laws.

So, you might as well fight it at the source, rather than wait for it to be too late.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by marcp
by marcp on Tue 8th Nov 2011 21:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by marcp"
marcp Member since:
2007-11-23

I'm kinda helpless. I'm not a U.S citizen. It's not my law. I just don't want U.S to act as the father of all laws. I'd like them to mind their own business, limited to their own country.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by marcp
by LighthouseJ on Tue 8th Nov 2011 23:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by marcp"
LighthouseJ Member since:
2009-06-18

I am a citizen of the United States, and I feel equally as helpless as you, even with our access to voting.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by marcp
by umccullough on Wed 9th Nov 2011 08:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by marcp"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

I'm kinda helpless. I'm not a U.S citizen. It's not my law. I just don't want U.S to act as the father of all laws. I'd like them to mind their own business, limited to their own country.


Likewise, as a U.S. citizen, I wish my country's government would get out of my business too ;)

You can start by contacting your own government representatives and letting them know that you strongly disagree with U.S. laws...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by marcp
by tomcat on Thu 10th Nov 2011 22:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by marcp"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

If there's one thing wikileaks leaked state department cables have shown us - the U.S. is VERY much involved in "helping" the rest of the world make laws.


What's your point? Every country on Earth is working in its own self-interest, in diabolical ways, in cynical ways. None of this shite is exclusive to the U.S.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by zima
by zima on Tue 15th Nov 2011 23:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by marcp"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Google: tu quoque (and how it didn't work as a defence of war crimes in Yugoslav wars). Perhaps also creeping normalcy, nirvana / perfect solution fallacy, or b&w thinking.

And it is rhetoric of your place which paints it as the greatest evah (heck, even literally... http://kyon.pl/img/18692,Africa,infographic,.html 2nd paragraph of the text in lower left corner)

But really, sort of telling how you retreat to such defence. Of, may I remind you, a major influencing force of the last few decades (so on a time scales where the world very much still lives with the consequences, very actively feels the results)

One which, say, also has its share of coup d'etat events, is at least one of the biggest supporters of such (beware, if you're a small country which wants to pursue its own goals & you're not aligned with some other bully; well, and if you're a country of "lesser" people ...~Caucasians are of more concern to the world, it seems)
Or even of dubiously legal wars. And with among the most active intelligence agencies, also within Europe (pdf warning http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML... ). Or allied - again, within still very relevant historical background - with (often installed) regimes keeping themselves in power via violence, also extreme; systematically supporting such as long as they are on "the good side"

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I suppose this is going to work as well as in The Netherlands. After Thom's exhortations what happened? The most disadvantaged started to pay more. Obviously it worked well for the well-connected, knowledgeable and high earning yuppies.


Still not over that ZOMG COLLEGE phase, eh?

Reply Score: 1

I live in the US....
by amadensor on Tue 8th Nov 2011 21:34 UTC
amadensor
Member since:
2006-04-10

I am all for net neutrality, however (and in life there is always a however) I don't trust our legislators to do it right. Here is why:

1) They are mostly ignorant of technology.
2) They are often more beholden to special interests and lobbyists than constituents.
3) They are not very good at understanding unintended consequences.

So, although I think we need neutrality, I don't think legislation will ever get us there.

Reply Score: 2

I hear you but...
by kateline on Wed 9th Nov 2011 22:18 UTC in reply to "I live in the US...."
kateline Member since:
2011-05-19

I hear you. Our legislators often botch things even worse when they pass laws to "fix" something. In this case, though, the legislators who are in the pocket of business interests want the Congress not to act and protect net neutrality. In other words, the lack of action in this case guarantees the worst-case outcome. So a simple law to protect net neutrality is needed.

Reply Score: 1

Here's why it's important
by benali72 on Wed 9th Nov 2011 03:44 UTC
benali72
Member since:
2008-05-03

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-franken/net-neutrality-is-under-a_... a good article on why net neutrality is so important.

Reply Score: 1

Let the market decide...
by tomcat on Thu 10th Nov 2011 22:20 UTC
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

People have a variety of options wrt ISPs: cable, DSL, satellite, private networks, etc. If there are significant complaints by customers -- which there currently aren't -- then people will vote with their feet. Or an alternative provider will spring up. The market will punish bad conduct. And if a provider holds a monopoly -- meaning there are no alternatives -- then its conduct is subject to regulation, anyway; so, either way, net neutrality is a solution seeking a problem.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Let the market decide...
by benali72 on Fri 11th Nov 2011 20:22 UTC in reply to "Let the market decide..."
benali72 Member since:
2008-05-03

In the US, many people have only a couple options for internet connection. I live in a major US city and I have all of 3 options. Many people in smaller urban areas and rural areas have only 1 or 2 options. "Let the market decide" doesn't work when people don't have options.

.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Let the market decide...
by tomcat on Fri 11th Nov 2011 21:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Let the market decide..."
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

In the US, many people have only a couple options for internet connection. I live in a major US city and I have all of 3 options. Many people in smaller urban areas and rural areas have only 1 or 2 options. "Let the market decide" doesn't work when people don't have options.


You do realize that ISPs will simply stop servicing smaller urban and rural areas -- or reduce the quality of service -- if their revenue stream dries up, right?

Reply Score: 2