Obama, internet nanny

[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]

Come on now Blender LOL. You have been making well-researched, well written post (not saying mine are) till this one. I could say the same for the whole "Birther" movement. Like the douchebag Obama is, Obama won't just post his birth certificate. Like he has something to hide.....his lack of U.S. citizenship, maybe?? )

He did post his birth certificate. And Hawai'i verified that his birth certificate was genuine. And the Supreme Court has ruled supporting his citizenship... several times.

The controversy has gotten to the point that if you make a request for info on Obama's birth certificate to the state of Hawai'i, they will just ignore you, hang up on you, etc.

Aloha, bitches!!11!1!

[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.

[burnout1990]

Its hilarious to hear the "lets hate Obama" bandwagon try to talk tough. If you want to take up arms against the gov't, be my guest. Just know that it didn't work out too well for the last group that tried it.

When did I EVER say I hate Obama? L 2 Read high speed...I simply said that Everyone wanted change and that was their excuse for voting for Obama...and I'm only speaking of the people I'm around and heard their opinion (U.S. Army personnel not just two or three friends) or have read their post on any forum. Don't quote me and then make it how you think you read it....I said one thing and was replied with one thing and my comment about making change had NOTHING to do with Obama, a let's hate Obama bandwagon or taking up arms with the Government.....it was the fact people wanted change and now don't like the changes being made....