Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Sep 2009 19:16 UTC
Permalink for comment 385399
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-09-22
The way I see it is this: If the net neutrality passes then the government has a legal precedent to control the Internet. This might seem good at first, with the net neutrality but it can turn very ugly from here on. So supporting net netrality is basically saying "I think the government should have the power to control the Internet".
Many people might be say at this point "Well what about the greedy Corporations they should be able to control everything.". Well the situation is not good either way but at least I could change my ISP. I might pay more but if others do the same the markets would favor net neutral ISPs. It would be much harder to sussed from the government if you didn't like how they were controlling the Internet. The last time that was tried the government violently invaded and waged a bloody war on civilians including brutally burning down full towns and cites.
In the mean time have an idea but I don't know if it is plausible. What if you bring up a ISP on fraud charges if they start to throttle the Internet. You can claim that the Internet isn't throttled and what they are doing is selling you something that is not the Internet any more while still claiming it is.