So Obama's against this idea I guess, so what is he going to do about this then?
Jack shit. Once he realizes it'll get them a little more spare change, he'll be all for it.
Oh yeah, because Obama is this evil, tyrannical dictator of a president who wants to burn American rights to the ground just so he can line his pockets along with all those other liberals, right?
Get your head out of the internet and back into the real world, then analyze the situation and comment again. America isn't going to go to hell just because of one little slip-up that was overblown by the media and internet, just calm down and wait for the Obama Administration to take care of the situation. We, as in the people of this democratic nation, voted for them to be there, and it's their job to take care of situations that bring about something that is unwanted by the majority population.
We, as in the people of this democratic nation, voted for them to be there, and it's their job to take care of situations that bring about something that is unwanted by the majority population.
Don't use "majority" when you don't know what the majority wants. There was a survey done for this and people apposing the FCC regulations only got up to 54% of them, with 20% saying they weren't sure. This would probably be generally the same figures if every American was interviewed, and this is probably going to be displayed on the media so much with propaganda and whatnot and those 20% of people who weren't sure will think "hey, I like this idea!".
Originally posted by my opinions
Personally I see this whole net neutrality thing as extremely hypocritical. If people aren't willing to pay extra for more features and are making this huge uproar about it, why are you not complaining about cable TV the same way?
I kind of see this as something good, but bad at the same time. It will be horrible for all-around internet users, but for those who only want certain features of the web, it's perfect. You pay less because you're only paying for what you want to browse. Why pay the same price as everyone else if, say, all you do on the internet is IM, email, Facebook and Youtube?
Then again the cons outweigh the pros. If net neutrality is abolished then small websites will never grow. Ever. If this new law existed in 2005 and onwards SMWC probably wouldn't be this popular.
... assuming international traffic INTO the US/Canada are included.
I think the government will give an honest attempt to try and change this as is, but until the corporations learn to GTFO American politics it'll only take a good number of petitions with hundreds of thousands, millions, maybe even tens of millions before it changes for the better.
So yeah, try to find a petition supporting real net neutrality and sign it so hard the binary of your signature is big, bold and red.
1) Oh no, smartphone blockage!
Companies who manufacture the smartphone could already block content by not supporting platforms - Apple + Flash was the famous example of this. Besides, if a company ever tried to block an actually popular site, the PR department would get pummeled. If they blocked a small site, that's why you have a computer.
2) Oh no, tollbooths!
Basically, providers are allowed to split sites into fast/slow lanes. Google and Amazon, etc (companies that could pay to get moved to the fast lane) already load faster for me (better servers?), so I don't really see what's changing here.
3) Oh no, public vs. private!
It would seem that this will result in BS corporate "features" like the ESPN + Time Warner internet service partnership being advertised in my area, which I consider pointless. Again, this isn't blocking anything - most people are unlikely to ever use this stuff.