var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
Darrone
October 27, 2009 3:53 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

Ignorance at its best. The argument here: By making the industry less competitive, we will improve profits, creating more telecom jobs for Hispanics.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
zombies.like.lattés.too
October 27, 2009 3:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?\"


Honestly, this whole debate is like listening to Zapp Brannigan.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jeff-er-ee
October 27, 2009 5:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@zombies.like.lattés.too: \"...this whole debate is like listening to Zapp Brannigan.\"

You win the Internets today. Kiff would be proud of you.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
juri squared
October 27, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@zombies.like.lattés.too: Thanks for that! It makes me giggle at the debate, instead of rage-filled.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dragonfire81
October 27, 2009 4:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

And why would non Hispanics not be eligible for those jobs too?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
October 27, 2009 4:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81: The article basically stated that HTTP was opposed to net neutrality because it inherantly believed that net neutrality would stifle infrastructure. Jobs would be created, but not exactly for blue collar workers - many of whom are Hispanic. If you believe that net neutrality will stifle infrastructure investment, and blue collar jobs (like repairmen) will be lost, you have to oppose net neutrality.


It's just that there isn't evidence to suggest that companies will stop investing in infrastructure due to the success of net neutrality.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jeff-er-ee
October 27, 2009 5:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: I believe that the opposite will be true. In order to keep up with bandwidth requirements due to demand generated by a \"net neutrality\" environment, ISPs will be forced to upgrade their infrastructure, or lose business to their competitors who do. If ISPs can throttle at will, it removes some of the incentive to upgrade their equipment to keep up with demand...they can just throttle down traffic to less popular sites and the masses probably won't notice.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
s73v3r
October 27, 2009 5:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jeff-er-ee: What competitors? Most ISPs have a de facto monopoly.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jeff-er-ee
October 28, 2009 3:31 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@s73v3r: Well, some will disagree, but most major markets have at least DSL and Cable to compete, and then there's satellite. I'm lucky enough to be in a market that does have real competition (SF Bay Area) in most communities, so that may skew my point of view a bit. However, I think that my point still holds water. At-will Internet throttling won't spur competition and innovation IMHO, as much as having to keep up with demand.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Bob Lu
October 27, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: Better put it this way:
It's just that there isn't evidence to suggest that companies will investing in infrastructure, with or without net neutrality.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ARP
October 27, 2009 4:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: It's a scare tactic that the telecoms use. Basically, give us what we want, or we'll take our toys and go home. I don't think they'd actually follow through with it, but it scares the right people into giving in.


All the more reason to use that stimulus money that we're giving to telecoms to build out government owned lines that any telecom can lease and provide services. If you're rich enough to have your own lines, fine. It would actually encourage competition, rather than stifle it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
magus_melchior
October 27, 2009 7:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP:
All the more reason to use that stimulus money that we're giving to telecoms to build out government owned lines that any telecom can lease and provide services.

Didn't we try that ~15 years ago, only to have the telecoms effectively wipe their butts with the money?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
TCama
October 27, 2009 3:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Since this is a genuinely political issue (it's about actual legislation), don't these groups have to disclose their major funding? Anyone know anything more about this?

On a related note, you have to give HTTP some credit for a witty name.

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
oneandone
October 27, 2009 6:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TCama: Right now, it's just about regulation, not legislation. Minor point, but (sometimes) worth noting.


I understand what you mean about political, though - does anyone know if the same rules that restrict non-profits from influencing legislation also prohibit them from commenting on regulations?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
October 28, 2009 2:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@oneandone: i don't believe there are any rules about who can & cannot comment on regulations. however, which comments are used to craft & support regulation is typically related to the commenter's interest in the rules though. so, on this particular topic, i would fully expect to see rules drafted from comments by EFF, ARS, W3C, ISPs & other industry groups. that doesn't mean wild horses of america can't comment, it just means they'll be largely ignored.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
oneandone
October 27, 2009 6:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@oneandone: PS - I couldn't find a way to make my comment sound non-snarky, but it wasn't intended that way. Just a factual note.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
katstermonster
October 27, 2009 5:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TCama: The big companies are smart enough to hide behind a smaller interest group, which in turn funds the \"grassroots effort.\"


For example: Rachel Maddow did a long piece on the astroturfing behind the Tea Parties, it turned out if you traced back to parent companies and groups, you eventually found the GOP. And by eventually, I don't mean 20 degrees of separation. I mean like, 2 or 3.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
October 27, 2009 4:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TCama: They do disclose major funding, but they really only have to do it to the IRS to maintain their nonprofit status (the filing is open for public view though). That's one of the reasons why they can get away with astroturfing.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rachacha
October 27, 2009 5:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: HTTP appears to be a coalition of other Hispanic oriented groups and trade associations. HTTP also appears to operate out of the same office space as Aspira (www.aspira.org). Their website claims that they work in three main areas: \"Youth Leadership and Community Service, Educational Access and Careers, and Community Mobilization for Educational Excellence\" among Latino youth. Aspira also has a short blurb indicating that they are opposed to Net Neutrality.


To look at the funding for HTTP, you would probably need to look at the individual organizations that make up HTTP and who sits on the board of directors for each of those organizations.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Naame
October 27, 2009 4:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Inside this link you can view contributions made by all of the telecoms and cable companies over the past 2 years to all of our congressmen. There are also several links to additional articles going over many interesting details.

Notice that John McCain is beaming at the top of the list with almost $900,000 total in contributions. Gee...I wonder why he is behind the \"Internet Freedom Act\"? I wonder who's \"freedom\" it is intended to protect? Could it be the monopolistic environment that the telecoms and cable companies current have on us? Maybe...

[realtime.sunlightprojects.org]

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
JGKojak
October 27, 2009 4:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Kill net neutrality and you kill the internet.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
Cant_stop_the_rock
October 27, 2009 4:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JGKojak:

The Internet (and networks in general) are not neutral now.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
suburbancowboy
October 27, 2009 4:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cant_stop_the_rock: How so? Last time I checked the FCC went after Cox for throttling bandwidth for bit torrent users. FCC has already been upholding net neutrality.

Basically what the telecom companies want is the ability to bribe every content provider on the web.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TheWillow
October 27, 2009 6:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@suburbancowboy: Actually I think what they want is the ability to BE bribed by every content provider on the web.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
s73v3r
October 27, 2009 5:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@suburbancowboy: That was Comcast, I believe. Unless I missed something.

@Cant_stop_the_rock: They are pretty neutral now. Occasionally you get someone like Comcast actively interfering with user's connections, and then they get smacked down by the FCC. Hard.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TechnoDestructo
October 28, 2009 2:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Sanspants:

If you die in the Matrix, you die in real life.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ARP
October 27, 2009 4:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JGKojak: I wouldn't go that far. But I think it would hobble a lot of its growth and hurt the technology economy, with only a few of the most powerful telecoms and industries winning.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
October 27, 2009 4:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well, to be fair, Glenn Beck did a Call To Arms on this, so I'm amazed that there isn't even MORE stupidity being pushed by consumers fighting valiantly to sodomize themselves.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
ARP
October 27, 2009 6:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: Ah yes, he's taken a proposed government regulation that says that telecomes can't block/throttle what users do on the internet (with exceptions if it's unlawful) and turned it into: \"do you really want the government controlling what you see on the internet.\"


Amazing.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mazzic1083
October 27, 2009 9:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP: Glenn Beck never ceases to amaze.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
squinko
October 27, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: The same people who would listen to Beck are the same people who think sodomy gets them sent to hell so...

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
theSuperman
October 27, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What about the Hispanics who wish to open online businesses but cannot afford to pay all the large ISPs to not block/extremely slow down their traffic to their customers? (wow that was a long sentence)

Their logic for opposing net neutrality is not that good. They are opposing it for fear it will happen, yet there is no proof that it actually WOULD happen. Well, I guess the ISPs are though.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
ARP
October 27, 2009 6:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@theSuperman: No, you have it all wrong. They just need to work harder to pay the ISP so that their traffic/website isn't blocked or throttled.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
s73v3r
October 27, 2009 5:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@theSuperman: There is a bit of precedent for this. Back when Time Warner was experimenting with Usage Based Billing, after they found out that they really couldn't get away with that, mainly because they were going to roll it out where they were the only ISP in the area, they then threw a tantrum and decided they weren't going to roll out DOCSIS 3.0 in those areas.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jeff-er-ee
October 27, 2009 5:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@theSuperman: Yep. Jumping over the dollar to grab the dime, as an ex-coworker once told me.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Cant_stop_the_rock
October 27, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

People who actually understand how networks work know that most networks are not neutral, and that a neutral network is not necessarily the best network. I don't run a neutral network in my home. Some content is more time-sensitive than other content - online gaming, streaming video, VOIP, etc. Why would I want it to have the same priority as a file I'm downloading that is not time-sensitive?

Everyone thinks this net neutrality debate is over whether AT&T can charge Google for delivering their content, because some AT&T exec who has no idea what he's talking about mentioned it a while back. People don't understand that if they want their U-verse TV service to work well, it has to be given priority over your neighbor's bittorrent downloads.

If you're going to demand a neutral network, at least understand what you're demanding.

Reply
8 replies
\"user-pic\"
consumerfan
October 28, 2009 2:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cant_stop_the_rock: The 'best' network? From whose standpoint? From AT&T's standpoint, it's the one that gives them the most profit.

You want the best U-Verse TV experience? Well, I don't want that. I want the best file download experience - from any site I choose to trust. My parents want the best webmail speed (they have a really slow connection), my colleague needs decent VoIP QoS and I'm sure millions want the best gaming experience.

If you want a network that prioritizes television, and you don't mind that the one particular provider controls that priority, it already exists. Many people simply call it television. Others call it cable, or satellite. Some even receive broadcasts over the air.

The Internet has to be neutral because it isn't used just by you - it's used by everyone. You can manage your personal network however you like but the connection between it and other networks have to be neutral or it won't be the 'best' network. It won't be usable.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
s73v3r
October 27, 2009 6:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cant_stop_the_rock: No, you are wrong. Its ok if AT&T gives all VoIP traffic a higher QOS than BitTorrent, because VoIP is a low latency, low bandwidth protocol, while BitTorrent is a high latency, high bandwidth protocol. The problem comes when AT&T decides to prioritize \"AT&T VoIP\" over all other VoIP traffic, even so far as to degrade the performance of other VoIP products.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
j-o-h-n
October 27, 2009 5:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cant_stop_the_rock: If I'm your neighbor and I'm paying AT&T the same amount for my connection as you, why should you get better service just because you go to site X (U-Verse) and I go to site Y (linuxtracker)?

Would we let GM cut a deal with the highway department to give the right of way to people driving to Chevy dealerships?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Naame
October 27, 2009 4:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cant_stop_the_rock: I do and the FCC does too. If you read through their formal PDF document which went public last week (beyond just the 6 net neutrality rules) you will see that they understand your concerns and are trying to be as flexible as possible while preserving the idea of net neutrality as much as possible too.

They mention things like video streaming and how that might be worthy of a special exception for reasons very similar to your concerns.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Chris Walters
October 27, 2009 4:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cant_stop_the_rock: Part of the proposed neutrality rules set aside \"special services\" that would require different/preferential treatment. In addition, every single rule the FCC has suggested is \"subject to reasonable network management.\"

Some content is more time-sensitive than other content - online gaming, streaming video, VOIP, etc. Why would I want it to have the same priority as a file I'm downloading that is not time-sensitive?
That's not at all what the FCC is pushing for. Check out this post for details. [consumerist.com]

There's also a link there so you can read the actual draft released by the FCC and understand what's really up for discussion.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
tekkierich
October 27, 2009 4:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cant_stop_the_rock: You are my personal hero!

Well said.

I want my network connection to work well. I want to let people that know how to accomplish that, do that. I do not want congress to be my network admin.

If my service provider is not managing my connection well to get to the services and content I would like to access, I will go to another provider who will.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TheWillow
October 27, 2009 6:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@tekkierich: Oh good. And what will you do once you've realized that all of the different competitors available (all both of them, depending on your location) are not managing your connection well to get to the services and content you would like to access?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Chris Walters
October 27, 2009 4:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@tekkierich: You wrote:

I want my network connection to work well. I want to let people that know how to accomplish that, do that. I do not want congress to be my network admin.

If my service provider is not managing my connection well to get to the services and content I would like to access, I will go to another provider who will.

That's not at all what this topic is about. Read the actual draft released by the FCC if you want to know what it's really about. I don't know if you got your information from someone else or just summarized the debate yourself, but it sounds far enough off the mark that I don't think it will help you reach an informed opinion that's in your best-interests.
Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
October 27, 2009 6:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Chris Walters: It gives one pause enough to wonder if the telecom's astro-turfing efforts have expanded to consumer-related blogs, as well.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
hi
October 27, 2009 4:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

We need LESS government intervention. You really want them more involved in the internet than they already are? Just think of all the extra signing statements attached to the legislation.

Reply
8 replies
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
October 27, 2009 6:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hi: Yeah, the government is EVIL!
Let's instead trust quasi-monopoly oligarchs who exist solely through government intervention for their extortionate rates and policies! Their Free Marketing ways will save us ALL!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ARP
October 27, 2009 6:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hi: Oh dear, where to start...


1) Um, your free market hero, Bush was the primary user of signing statements saying he didn't need to follow the law because everything he did was under his power of commander in chief of the armed forces.


2) The government created the internet. If you're so opposed to government involvement, you can simply refuse to use such a socialist tool.


3) The government hasn't been very involved in regulating the Internet. However, the telcos have sucessfully consolidated and have created government approved monopolies in many areas.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Brontide
October 27, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hi: I would trust the mindless bureaucrats over the multi-national media conglomerates any day. Granted neither is optimal, but sometime you have to choose the option that is least bad.

Internet Service Providers should treat all traffic equally and not discriminate or charge based on destination. If they filter or shape based on protocol it must affect 100% of that protocol, should not be based on destination, and be clearly identified to customers in advance.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
October 27, 2009 5:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Brontide: I agree that neither is optimal. We're in a \"damned if you do, damned if you don't\" kind of situation - at this point, we can only hope for the lesser evil. I dislike government regulation as much as others do, and I have my doubts as to the FCC's abilities - but the alternative is very clear. Telcos will raise prices, telcos will continue to throttle internet, and they will continue to do as they see fit. That much is clear, and I don't like it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NitrousO
October 27, 2009 4:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hi: Your right. If the government backs off, Im sure my ISP wont try to wring more money out of me so that I can visit smaller websites. Oh wait...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jeff-er-ee
October 27, 2009 5:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@NitrousO: Or try to extort money out of those smaller websites to allow them the privilege of being able to be visited by the ISPs customers...

@hi: Would you care to offer any backup to an argument that appears to me to be rather empty? What government involvement in the Internet do they already have, beyond the fact that the initial investment was originally put forth by them and by the academic community? Their involvement is WHY IT EXISTS for all of us, and why it is as accessible and free as it is currently, for you, me, and the HTTP. Really, if you're going to spout your fear-mongering, at least have something to back it up.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
s73v3r
October 27, 2009 6:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jeff-er-ee: Most of the government involvement/corruption comes at the local level, where communities have decided to give only one or two companies the right to offer service.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jeff-er-ee
October 28, 2009 3:35 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@s73v3r & @Naame: That's a good point. Of course, it seems like there's nothing like an unregulated market to provide a nice warm environment for corruption...*cough*bankingindustry*cough* ;-) Then again, there's nothing like over-regulation to encourage corruption.

Heck, we're all screwed...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Naame
October 27, 2009 5:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jeff-er-ee: Eh..in response the question you posed about government involvement, there is a lot of history regarding telcos and the cable providers when it comes to the government and the FCC. However, all of the history which is generally disapproved of by the masses is a result of corruption rather than inefficiency. The answer isn't less government in this case. It is less government corruption which is what I believe the FCC has turned into as of late. They are not perfect, but they are a hell of a lot better than they used to be.

AT&T in particular has been buying themselves as close to a monopoly as they can possibly get for a long time now through the government. They have also been paying off the FCC to turn their heads the other way in a manner of speaking.

Now, the tables are turning though. The FCC is filled with far less corruption and they are actually trying to modernize themselves to do their job properly. Obviously, businesses like AT&T fear such things because it means relinquishing the monopolistic grasp that they currently have on us. God forbid they are one day forced to maintain themselves by competing properly strictly through the use of quality services at competitive prices right? The new net neutrality rules alone will not be enough to establish that, but they are a huge step in the right direction.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Naame
October 27, 2009 4:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hi: ...and let the current telcos and cable companies regulate us instead? No thanks. We have been trying that for a while and it has only result in a monopolistic industry which keeps getting worse.

More government in this case is a good thing. More \"corrupt\" government would be a bad thing though. The FCC has a job to do and I am glad to see that they are finally working hard to do that job correctly.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
tbax929
October 27, 2009 4:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hi:
Ah, yes. Government is evil. As opposed to big corporations, that have all of our best interests in mind.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Brontide
October 27, 2009 4:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Um, you guys should already know the answer after the post last week. AT&T is totally astroturfing and therefore any support is suspect.

AT&T Asks Employees To Oppose Net Neutrality
By Alex Chasick, 2:46 PM on Tue Oct 20 2009, 6,011 views

A reader sent us a letter that AT&T sent to its employees asking them to tell the FCC they oppose net neutrality. This comes after the FCC announced plans to investigate and enact net neutrality rules that will ensure that internet service providers (like AT&T) treat all content equally. The letter and a rebuttal are inside.

[consumerist.com]

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
ARP
October 27, 2009 6:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Brontide: Also, technically, that's not astroturfing as it was encouragement by an employer to its employees. Astroturfing is what we have here, industry groups funding \"grass roots\" organizations to pretend like its a upswell of populism that's opposing net neutrality.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Brontide
October 27, 2009 7:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP: I would consider it astroturfing since they encouraged employees to use their personal email addressed in order to obscure their tracks.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Brontide
October 27, 2009 6:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Brontide: The title of this article is a question... but we already know that AT&T is funding and promoting astroturfing campaigns.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Naame
October 27, 2009 5:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Brontide: It goes beyond that though. We know about the letter to the employees.

What wasn't confirmed or researched in anyway until Ars wrote their article was AT&T's involvement with non-profit orgs. It looks like AT&T has been supplying a lot of those orgs with cash just like they lobby politicians. Hence, the resulting anti-net neutrality internet comments and letters sent to the FCC.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
October 27, 2009 5:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Brontide: Just because we know they are doesn't lessen the importance of reporting such things.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
katstermonster
October 27, 2009 5:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Astroturfing at its finest. When will people learn?

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
wagenejm
October 27, 2009 5:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The people screaming that this is the government just trying to take more control over our lives are just Glenn Beck following morons.

The government ALREADY HAS CONTROL over these portions of our lives and has for decades. The concept here is a rewriting of existing rules to make them better and more applicable to today's changing technology.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Cyberxion101
October 27, 2009 6:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: Blanket assumptions are fun, pecan pi! For example, I'm making the blanket assumption that you're delicious.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
esd2020
October 27, 2009 6:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The thing some of you don't understand is that net neutrality *is* the status quo. Net neutrality laws are needed to *prevent* the internet from changing into something it is not.

If we do not protect net neutrality, that does NOT mean things will stay the same.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
That's Consumer007 to you
October 27, 2009 8:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yes AT&T will hire more slaves, helping to control other slaves that don't work for it.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
YardanCabaret
October 27, 2009 9:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sylvia Aguilera's response to the article is even better. All she got out of the Ars article was, \"Minorities are stupid and can't think for themselves\". So maybe she's not a shill and is just incredibly dumb and racist. Yes thinking everyone around you is being racist when they are not DOES make YOU a racist.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Munchie
October 28, 2009 12:40 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Ok here we go. Unfortunately monopolies are required for infrastructure services. There can't be 20 separate services connecting your your house through different wires. The logistics of such a setup would be beyond a nightmare.

The best that is possible is a few monopolistic companies. I believe that they should service local providers who compete for service and not be allowed to directly interact with customers, but thats another matter. With a monopoly situation we are in with telcos and cable providers there has to be very strict regulation. This is the reality of the situation we are in, it has to dealt with as such.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
banmojo
October 28, 2009 4:46 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I would no sooner trust ATT than I would a ravenous great white circling round. Massive organizations like that have too much centralized power, which will ALWAYS end up being used to abuse those without. Which leads me to our current government ....

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Archangelo
October 29, 2009 1:40 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Socialists: Government good, capitalists bad

Conservatives: Government bad, competition good

Consumers: Just give me my damn internet and LEAVE ME ALONE

Conservatives: Ah, you're on OUR side

Socialists: Shut up; we know what's good for you so we'll make your choices for you and you'll like it

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
PermanentStar
October 29, 2009 4:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You know, my friend actually brought an article in favor of net nuetrality onto a politics board (trying to get people to comment to the FCC to go forth with net nuetrality regulations) and there are a ton of people on there who are against it b/c they feel it interferes with the free market, and the free market will regulate the internet just fine because if people don't like the regulations of one company, they will move onto another. Personally, I don't understand that concept, because I think if you allow the companies to discriminate against content you're going to get several companies' versions of the internet (if you are lucky enough to be in an area with several competing ISPs), but not necessarily have access to all legal content with anybody.


Suffice it to say, I was quite surprised at the amount of people against net nuetrality regulations.

Reply
");