Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 9th Jun 2006 11:22 UTC, submitted by Dylan
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.
Thread beginning with comment 132018
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[12]: Good thing this idiocy was rejected
by dylansmrjones on Fri 9th Jun 2006 18:21
in reply to "RE[11]: Good thing this idiocy was rejected"
Member since:2005-10-02
RE[13]: Good thing this idiocy was rejected
by Cloudy on Fri 9th Jun 2006 23:00
in reply to "RE[11]: Good thing this idiocy was rejected"
Member since:2006-02-15
You only have the right to live in quiet within your domain. And you're - in this situation - not located within your own domain.
This sentence makes no sense in light of the comment it is in response to: But even that view is overly simplistic, since, again, you've missed the issue of rights in conflict. The classic example here is your right to make noise versus my right to live in quiet.
The problem is that you're avoiding the obvious: noise does not respect your idea of "domain", and travels from one domain to the other.
RE[14]: Good thing this idiocy was rejected
by Get a Life on Sat 10th Jun 2006 02:14
in reply to "RE[13]: Good thing this idiocy was rejected"
Member since:2006-01-01
Member since:
2006-02-15
With law shall land be built, but if everybody would be satisfied with what belongs to him, and let other persons enjoy the same right, then there would be no need for a law.
That's all it boils down to.
In other words, it boils down to "if humans weren't human they wouldn't need human institutions."
But even that view is overly simplistic, since, again, you've missed the issue of rights in conflict. The classic example here is your right to make noise versus my right to live in quiet.