@good grief - Sorry you can't reply because we, as your ISP, have decided Engadget isn't a valuable Interwebs destination for you. You are welcome to pay an additional $25 per month if you'd like access to our Tier 11 selection of valuable Interwebs destinations, however Engadget is not included in that selection. That'd be Tier 12, for an additional $15 a month. Thank you for calling MegaISP help desk. Your call is important to us.
It's a question of whose freedoms are being protected. To protect the freedoms of consumers, you have to limit the freedoms of the ISPs. If you protect the freedoms of the ISPs, they will in turn limit the freedom of consumers. Just saying you promote "freedom" doesn't mean you're going to help the population as a whole. Supporting the freedom of rapists and murderers isn't good for everyone, but it has that magic buzz word, "FREEDOM!"
"It's a question of whose freedoms are being protected. To protect the freedoms of consumers, you have to limit the freedoms of the ISPs."
No, you have to give the people the power to protect themselves. Stop taking 30% of their income and let them decide what ISP to switch to if the old one is too strict.
Not only is the "Internet Freedom Act of 2009" bill ironic, it's ballsy. There already exists a bill called the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009, which is actual net neutrality legislation http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3458/show.
The FCC can adopt regulations all they want, but they're a slow and ineffectual body when it comes to taking action against an offending party. Do you think the FCC would take prompt action if you report that your ISP is blocking content or violating your right to an open internet? No. What we need is net neutrality legislation, so that offending parties can be brought into the judicial system, where lawsuits will ensure an expedient administration of justice.
When I say that the FCC is ineffectual at responding to complaints of average people, I speak from experience. I had to sign up with the only broadband provider in town, which was extremely costly and had a draconian Terms of Service. In order to use the service, I had to agree that I wouldn't use the connection to access material that "contains explicit or graphic descriptions, or accounts of, sexual acts." To make it worse, they would hijack random HTTP requests and redirect me to ads. No, I'm not kidding. This is what I'd occasionally see when trying to go to google.com: http://i35.tinypic.com/28qqf4w.png. I submitted a formal complaint to the FCC two years ago (when they still had these open internet guidelines) and they've done absolutely nothing.
McCain calling it the Internet Freedom Act of 2009 is either arrogant or ignorant. Tell your congressperson to support the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009, H.R. 3458: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3458/show
Where does net neutrality advocate only one ISP and no competition? Maybe he can't switch ISPs cause there are no others, or one controllers the access of the rest (thus controlling all). Ask a Canadian and you'll know what I'm talking about.
@ Andir "'It's a question of whose freedoms are being protected. To protect the freedoms of consumers, you have to limit the freedoms of the ISPs.'
No, you have to give the people the power to protect themselves. Stop taking 30% of their income and let them decide what ISP to switch to if the old one is too strict."
Is this just a big swipe at income taxes? Seriously, you lose a ton of credibility if, in a debate about net neutrality, you swerve off into the huge tangent of "taxes are bad."
You seem to be against all regulation and argue that net neutrality isn't needed in our "more perfect" system because consumers should just be able to switch to a less restrictive ISP. First, there aren't really any other ISP options, because the systematic deregulation of the industry that has taken place over the last decade or two has allowed (essentially guaranteed) the consolidation of the ISP business into a handful of players, and surprise, surprise, they are all against net neutrality because it is bad for their bottom line (they'd much rather be able to claim you have "unlimited" data, charge you a premium for it, and then block the really high traffic types of data). Second, I've yet to hear an argument from anyone, and especially not John McCain (whom I generally respect a great deal) or you, as to why net neutrality is bad for anyone. It isn't even that bad for ISPs except that they will have to chance their pricing structure to a "per data used" basis, which makes more sense economically anyway.
So, until you make that argument, your screaming and yelling about "freedom" are ridiculous.
I never said it's not needed. I'm all for a neutral internet where I can download whatever the hell I want and have freedom of speech, and exercise all my freedoms. I just don't like the wording of the bill. It's open to loopholes and I think we are better off without it right now. I think it will do more harm than good.
The Internet, even though it's pretty ubiquitous, isn't really a requirement for life, liberty or the like. You cannot give me one example of a life sustaining system that requires the internet. So right now, I feel as though companies are in the right to protect their own networks for the betterment of their paying customers. If their paying customers move to another service that allows them to download torrents, they will be forced to reconsider. Until then, the Internet is a service, just like getting a massage. It might feel good when you have it, but it's not required to live your daily life so therefore it's a luxury and regulation is NOT required.
To me, it feels like the other failed legislation forcing the hands of business making them look like the bad guys. If this goes through, you WILL see internet prices go up to pay for infrastructure and service costs. Then you'll see some representative and his minions declare the evilness of ISPs that have exponentially increased their rates to cover the idiocy of the regulations placed upon them. Sound familiar? It should. We are arguing over it right this moment with health care costs. This is not greedy business entirely. Yes, there's some greed involved, but the bottom line is that the Internet service you receive will not be sustainable if everyone is permitted to use it however they like. Just like health care, I think we are approaching this form the wrong angle. Nothing is being fixed. More bandages are being/will be applied.
The new FiOS HD DVR, arguably the biggest update since Verizon released a DVR, thanks to its external storage support, enhanced multi-room functionality and slick new 16x9 HD user interface.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I presume the bill title is ironic.
No, not at all. The bill proposes freedom from governmental regulation and censorship of the internet. Did you even read the entire post?
For whom? Only regulation will ensure fair access for all.
@good grief - Sorry you can't reply because we, as your ISP, have decided Engadget isn't a valuable Interwebs destination for you. You are welcome to pay an additional $25 per month if you'd like access to our Tier 11 selection of valuable Interwebs destinations, however Engadget is not included in that selection. That'd be Tier 12, for an additional $15 a month. Thank you for calling MegaISP help desk. Your call is important to us.
@posterchild: If you didn't have government regulations keeping MegaISP as your only provider, you'd have a choice to move to someone else.
Andir, you speak the truth. The child most likely doesn't have the option to change his ISP because his parents are the ones paying for it.
It's a question of whose freedoms are being protected. To protect the freedoms of consumers, you have to limit the freedoms of the ISPs. If you protect the freedoms of the ISPs, they will in turn limit the freedom of consumers. Just saying you promote "freedom" doesn't mean you're going to help the population as a whole. Supporting the freedom of rapists and murderers isn't good for everyone, but it has that magic buzz word, "FREEDOM!"
"It's a question of whose freedoms are being protected. To protect the freedoms of consumers, you have to limit the freedoms of the ISPs."
No, you have to give the people the power to protect themselves. Stop taking 30% of their income and let them decide what ISP to switch to if the old one is too strict.
Not only is the "Internet Freedom Act of 2009" bill ironic, it's ballsy. There already exists a bill called the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009, which is actual net neutrality legislation http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3458/show.
The FCC can adopt regulations all they want, but they're a slow and ineffectual body when it comes to taking action against an offending party. Do you think the FCC would take prompt action if you report that your ISP is blocking content or violating your right to an open internet? No. What we need is net neutrality legislation, so that offending parties can be brought into the judicial system, where lawsuits will ensure an expedient administration of justice.
When I say that the FCC is ineffectual at responding to complaints of average people, I speak from experience. I had to sign up with the only broadband provider in town, which was extremely costly and had a draconian Terms of Service. In order to use the service, I had to agree that I wouldn't use the connection to access material that "contains explicit or graphic descriptions, or accounts of, sexual acts." To make it worse, they would hijack random HTTP requests and redirect me to ads. No, I'm not kidding. This is what I'd occasionally see when trying to go to google.com: http://i35.tinypic.com/28qqf4w.png. I submitted a formal complaint to the FCC two years ago (when they still had these open internet guidelines) and they've done absolutely nothing.
McCain calling it the Internet Freedom Act of 2009 is either arrogant or ignorant. Tell your congressperson to support the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009, H.R. 3458: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3458/show
Where does net neutrality advocate only one ISP and no competition?
Maybe he can't switch ISPs cause there are no others, or one controllers the access of the rest (thus controlling all). Ask a Canadian and you'll know what I'm talking about.
@ Andir "'It's a question of whose freedoms are being protected. To protect the freedoms of consumers, you have to limit the freedoms of the ISPs.'
No, you have to give the people the power to protect themselves. Stop taking 30% of their income and let them decide what ISP to switch to if the old one is too strict."
Is this just a big swipe at income taxes? Seriously, you lose a ton of credibility if, in a debate about net neutrality, you swerve off into the huge tangent of "taxes are bad."
You seem to be against all regulation and argue that net neutrality isn't needed in our "more perfect" system because consumers should just be able to switch to a less restrictive ISP. First, there aren't really any other ISP options, because the systematic deregulation of the industry that has taken place over the last decade or two has allowed (essentially guaranteed) the consolidation of the ISP business into a handful of players, and surprise, surprise, they are all against net neutrality because it is bad for their bottom line (they'd much rather be able to claim you have "unlimited" data, charge you a premium for it, and then block the really high traffic types of data). Second, I've yet to hear an argument from anyone, and especially not John McCain (whom I generally respect a great deal) or you, as to why net neutrality is bad for anyone. It isn't even that bad for ISPs except that they will have to chance their pricing structure to a "per data used" basis, which makes more sense economically anyway.
So, until you make that argument, your screaming and yelling about "freedom" are ridiculous.
I never said it's not needed. I'm all for a neutral internet where I can download whatever the hell I want and have freedom of speech, and exercise all my freedoms. I just don't like the wording of the bill. It's open to loopholes and I think we are better off without it right now. I think it will do more harm than good.
The Internet, even though it's pretty ubiquitous, isn't really a requirement for life, liberty or the like. You cannot give me one example of a life sustaining system that requires the internet. So right now, I feel as though companies are in the right to protect their own networks for the betterment of their paying customers. If their paying customers move to another service that allows them to download torrents, they will be forced to reconsider. Until then, the Internet is a service, just like getting a massage. It might feel good when you have it, but it's not required to live your daily life so therefore it's a luxury and regulation is NOT required.
To me, it feels like the other failed legislation forcing the hands of business making them look like the bad guys. If this goes through, you WILL see internet prices go up to pay for infrastructure and service costs. Then you'll see some representative and his minions declare the evilness of ISPs that have exponentially increased their rates to cover the idiocy of the regulations placed upon them. Sound familiar? It should. We are arguing over it right this moment with health care costs. This is not greedy business entirely. Yes, there's some greed involved, but the bottom line is that the Internet service you receive will not be sustainable if everyone is permitted to use it however they like. Just like health care, I think we are approaching this form the wrong angle. Nothing is being fixed. More bandages are being/will be applied.