The US House of Representatives definitively rejected the concept of Net neutrality on Thursday, dealing a bitter blow to Internet companies like Amazon.com, eBay and Google that had engaged in a last-minute lobbying campaign to support it. By a 269-152 vote that fell largely along party lines, the House Republican leadership mustered enough votes to reject a Democrat-backed amendment that would have enshrined stiff Net neutrality regulations into federal law and prevented broadband providers from treating some Internet sites differently from others.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-10-02
Thom, Thom, Thom.
I do know what Communism is. And this law is Communistic-tasting.
The law would reduce the personal freedom, and as such it definitely has a Communistic taste. One could also claim it has a Fascist taste, or any other freedom-limiting taste, but it doesn't change the fact that the law does limit the personal freedom, and therefore is opposite the American Constitution, which was created to ensure personal freedom.
The principle of this law is opposite the principle of the American Constitution, as well as the Dutch and the Danish Constitution (Grundloven).
The fewer laws == better, more laws == worse. It's that simple.
Member since:2006-02-15
The fewer laws == better, more laws == worse. It's that simple.
That's definitely simple. Naive, but simple.
Taken to its logical conclusion, you would have no laws at all. It would be no problem for me to drive the wrong way down a one way street, ignoring speed limits and stop lights.
Each proposed law should be judged on the merits of that law and those that make sense should be passed.
Member since:2005-07-09
Dude, I would like normally agree with you in all aspects except for those laws that enforce equality and protect individual freedoms and to me this looks like one of those laws. Broadband access == cable for most yanks, and since there is no competition among cable providers, (in almost every market there is only one provider to choose from), they need some stiff rules to prevent them from behaving badly, most abuse their position to the hilt as it is now. In any other situation I'm with you 100% and would urge de-criminalization over legalization every time. I wholeheartedly agree there is way too much legislation but it's not all bad, some of it actually protects the rights of the individual.
Member since:2006-01-26
I agree with you that fewer laws == better, more laws == worse. But at the same time, fewer companies == worse, more companies == better.
And if there are only a few companies who control access to the Internet, then some regulations need to be laid down to govern those companies.
Member since:
2005-06-29
I don't consider communistic-tasting laws to be the answer.
You find this law "communistic-tasting"? Boy, you must have no idea what communism means. Please don't use words when you have no idea what they mean. This law is as much communistic as is the US constitution-- exactly, not at all.