Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Sep 2009 19:16 UTC
Internet & Networking Julius Genachowski, Chairman of the US Federal Communications Commission, today laid out plans to enforce net neutrality upon the internet. While the FCC is a US-only entity, fact of the matter is that "control" over the internet lies within the US, so whatever the FCC decides, it will affect the rest of the world.
Thread beginning with comment 385360
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Excellent news.
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 21st Sep 2009 22:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Excellent news."
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

This isn't censorship, and if you had paid any form of attention instead of kneejerking, you would've seen that the rules do not interfere with the internet, but merely with US ISPs.

Please read the article before commenting. Thank you.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Excellent news.
by richmassena on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 01:37 in reply to "RE[2]: Excellent news."
richmassena Member since:
2006-11-26

I think it is you that need to pay attention. Who says what content gets what bandwidth. Right now it is the ability to pay, and that certainly skews things in a certain, but predictable manner. If your ISP decides OSNEWS is a really low priority site, they can throttle it completely. What good is a globally-distributed network where the "man-in-the-middle" can decide what sites you can reach and at what speeds.

The ISPs and Telecoms will swear until they're blue in the face that this isn't the intent of their plans, that it's only to squeeze more money from already paying customers, but it's not. This is about control of the Internet. This is about putting the cat back in the bag.

Edit: their->they're

Edited 2009-09-22 01:38 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Excellent news.
by BigDaddy on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 12:34 in reply to "RE[2]: Excellent news."
BigDaddy Member since:
2006-08-10

Did you read the "Consumers are allowed to access the lawful internet content of their choice." part? That would scare the hell out of me. What is lawful content? That could change on a whim.

Look at Iran blocking the social sites, email, and whatnot. Think that can't happen here? We already have brown shirt tactics where people can anonymously tell the government who was badmouthing the health care plans. We have news that is not being reported, the next step would be marking the people who write on their blogs what they perceive as truth being called dissidents and having their content labeled unlawful content. They did not say legal or illegal for a reason.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Excellent news.
by kenji on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 16:44 in reply to "RE[3]: Excellent news."
kenji Member since:
2009-04-08

Did you read the "Consumers are allowed to access the lawful internet content of their choice." part? That would scare the hell out of me. What is lawful content? That could change on a whim.

Look at Iran blocking the social sites, email, and whatnot. Think that can't happen here? We already have brown shirt tactics where people can anonymously tell the government who was badmouthing the health care plans. We have news that is not being reported, the next step would be marking the people who write on their blogs what they perceive as truth being called dissidents and having their content labeled unlawful content. They did not say legal or illegal for a reason.

That was just what I was thinking. We should have access to CONTENT, period. 'Legality' of said content is subjective.

Reply Parent Score: 1