Show of HandsShow of Hands

Zod November 12th, 2014 2:50am

Is the "Net Neutrality" debate about the government regulating Web content, or Web access?

25 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

ovcourse Alzheimer Joe
11/12/14 6:05 pm

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it....”

Reply
osouless Whats Next
11/12/14 1:43 pm

Access. Unless you're a Republican.

mrdudemanpants
11/12/14 6:57 am

Thank goodness most people understand the issue. At least, in some capacity.

Reply
cowboy Doors of Perception
11/12/14 6:29 am

The President wants control of the Internet. Enough said.

Reply
Diknak Ohio
11/12/14 6:35 am

lol, I hope that is a joke. Net neutrality is about making sure no one has "control" of it.

cowboy Doors of Perception
11/12/14 6:57 am

You poor child. So naive.

HillaryRClinton 1599 Pennsylvania Ave.
11/12/14 12:10 pm

While I agree with you, I believe it is other organizations of our government who would rather control the Internet than our president. He doesn't have time to watch the Internet and gold at the same time!

cowboy Doors of Perception
11/12/14 12:19 pm

He lied about Government healthcare.

HillaryRClinton 1599 Pennsylvania Ave.
11/12/14 12:27 pm

Yes, and that is why we can not trust him with the most valuable information database.

bluerum29 optimistic idealist
11/12/14 6:27 am

It's about us not having to pay more money

Reply
Torfin Never Behind
11/12/14 3:12 am

It is about Governmental Control.

Diknak Ohio
11/12/14 6:36 am

You do realize that Net Neutrality ensures that no one has control of it, right? Not even government.

Torfin Never Behind
11/13/14 11:01 am

Lmao, You don't really believe that do you? They want to be able to REGULATE it not free it for everyone. Is water free? Is your sewer free?

HammeringMan Gods Away On Business
11/12/14 12:54 am

The gov loves to protect. That are it here to help.

Liberty 4,032,064
11/11/14 10:41 pm

Neither. It's about prohibiting people from paying for prioritized service.

Reply
HillaryRClinton 1599 Pennsylvania Ave.
11/12/14 3:08 am

Why is that a bad thing?

Liberty 4,032,064
11/12/14 6:18 am

1) Because it is another impediment to our liberties.
2) Hospitals and industrial customers pay for prioritized service to avoid interruptions in service that literally can kill people.

HillaryRClinton 1599 Pennsylvania Ave.
11/12/14 12:08 pm

Why don't we provide Internet to our schools, liberaries, and hospitals and call it a day?

Liberty 4,032,064
11/12/14 12:19 pm

What? They buy their own service. They don't need you to buy it for them.

HillaryRClinton 1599 Pennsylvania Ave.
11/12/14 12:28 pm

Well what money do they buy it with, smarty pants?

Liberty 4,032,064
11/12/14 12:29 pm

Their own money, unless you're talking about government-owned versions.

Rosebud Ohio
11/11/14 8:38 pm

It's about allowing access rather than letting companies restrict it.

Reply
Praetorianus Fair enough.
11/11/14 8:37 pm

NN is the principle that ISPs and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.

Reply
Praetorianus Fair enough.
11/11/14 8:38 pm

This is the definition I looked up. Now, this should mean if you are PRO net neutrality, you are CONTRA regulations. It looks so simple, why the debate?

Praetorianus Fair enough.
11/11/14 8:44 pm

My impression from this definition is that it refers mostly to content and restricting or not restricting access to the content, not access to the web in general.

Zod Above Pugetropolis
11/11/14 9:04 pm

Because without regulation preventing it, Comcast will do what Comcast does, and you'll pay extra to get access to anything they don't profit from.

Praetorianus Fair enough.
11/11/14 9:26 pm

Question: if the principle as I defined above is observed, would that bar a provider that hosts, say, discussion forums, to enforce something like a no adult topics policy because he regulates content?

Zod Above Pugetropolis
11/11/14 9:46 pm

The point is that they would not be allowed to throttle or block one source's content in favor of another's, as Comcast did earlier this year to extort Netflix. They shouldn't be able to filter, block, favor, or disclose any legal traffic.

Zod Above Pugetropolis
11/11/14 9:50 pm

Hosting a forum, and enforcing the rules of that forum, are completely outside of providing the means to access that forum or to deliver content to it. Extra services that an ISP may or may not provide are not part of net neutrality.

Praetorianus Fair enough.
11/11/14 10:34 pm

Thanks, I got it

TierasPet
11/11/14 8:37 pm

It seems more like access to me but I'm not sure that's completely it. It's not content but I could see it heading in that direction if they start passing legislation. It always creeps up and up and gets more expansive.

Reply
HammeringMan Gods Away On Business
11/12/14 12:51 am

Regulation creep, bracket creep, mission creep. Troublesome Threesome!

Axl752 NY
11/11/14 7:52 pm

For the right its about government regulation, to the left it's about access.

For the informed it is about access.

Reply