Obama, internet nanny

[bu villain]

No bu, I'm not confused at all. The FCC already regulates what is available on TV and radio. Do you really think this is going to be "light touch oversite" as some liberals are calling it? Take a look at what the FCC did to radio from 1969 to the mid 80's after the Red Lion case with the "Fairness campaign". They all but completely eliminated discussion of political topics and any criticism of the status quo.

I fully understand that this topic was brough up because a Large ISP was regulating the amount of bandwidth to certain applications. I wouldn't want this to happen to me but fortunately I have several options for internet service and if one doesn't provide the service I want I will go to another. My issue lies is that rarely does the government de-regulate anything (thank goodness they did for radio). The FCC may begin its regulation with the best intentions but the govenment is not in the habit of gaining power and then giving it back. I think this will end up being a way for the government to wring more money out of the ISP's.

I think we were talking past each other a bit. I agree the FCC should not be able to censor the internet in any way but I am for net neutrality. Can't regulation be done in such a way that the FCC can enforce neutrality without being able to control content? If we actually had a true competitive market this might be a moot point but we don't so here we are.

[Capt._Ron]

I think we were talking past each other a bit. I agree the FCC should not be able to censor the internet in any way but I am for net neutrality. Can't regulation be done in such a way that the FCC can enforce neutrality without being able to control content? If we actually had a true competitive market this might be a moot point but we don't so here we are.

That would be nice...a FCC the enforces neutrality without controlling content or a true competitive markey with many options for every consumer.

I think the debate comes down to a few major questions

1. Do you trust the government to regulate internet traffic without regulating content?
2. Should the market determine which content gets priority or should the government?

[Total_Blender]

1. Do you trust the government to regulate internet traffic without regulating content?
2. Should the market determine which content gets priority or should the government?

Option 1.) Open and unrestricted content for all. Pertty much maintaining the status quo we have now.

Option 2.) The only sites you get to access will be shopping sites or advertising, everything else will come at a premium. Whatever content can't find corporate sponsorship will disappear completely. In other words, Import Atlanta will become "Import Atlanta brought to you by Budwieser," and every time you click you'll get a popup add telling you how awesome Budweiser is.

[bu villain]

That would be nice...a FCC the enforces neutrality without controlling content or a true competitive markey with many options for every consumer.

I think the debate comes down to a few major questions

1. Do you trust the government to regulate internet traffic without regulating content?
2. Should the market determine which content gets priority or should the government?

1. Nope, but the ISPs have already proven they can't be trusted either. The word "regulate" here is misleading. That is like saying I don't want the government to remove all the speed limit signs on the road because I don't trust them to tell me how fast to drive. In this case regulating net neutrality is actually a protection of freedom for internet users.

2. Neither. Noone should determine priority. All content should be treated equally. Also what market? because right now there is no truly free market for internet services in most of the US.