©
The Federal Communications Commission has extended a comment period on restricting Internet service providers from playing favorites. The extension marks yet another delay in what has become a tortured pursuit of rules to keep the Internet as it is now - open and accessible for everyone.
The issue is no small matter; a decision to impose regulations will ripple beyond the lives of most Americans. Net neutrality rules, if properly drafted, will safeguard the universal access and competition that have made the Internet such an engine for innovation.
That's why the FCC and members of Congress have tried, albeit unsuccessfully, for years to regulate the delivery of broadband content. The rules aim to prevent Internet access providers from favoring one kind of political speech over another, or giving one company faster access because of a financial arrangement hidden from users.
After a federal appeals court ruled the FCC didn't have authority, the commission held discussions with Internet service providers this summer to negotiate an agreement. Those talks failed, too, which is why the public comment period remains open.
The FCC has outlined principles that form the core of net neutrality: equal access, freedom to choose services, a right to connect any safe and legal device and the right to choose a provider. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski added transparency and nondiscrimination.
Critics claim, incorrectly, that the push represents a government takeover. Without rules, though, it is likely that Internet service providers - rather than providing content-neutral service - would assume the role of gatekeeper, choking off access to competitors and choking off the innovation that is inherently connected to competition.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Is anyone surprised?
That progressives want to strangle free speech on the internet.
Eventually the progressive movement will lead to what it always does, burning books, and mass killings.
Step one is to prevent free open communication and control the news cycle.
Why Stop With The Internet?
So you want the gov't to regulate internet content? Unregulated speech frightens you? Okay, let's carry this logic just a bit further.
Is it "fair" to our local Spanish, French and Sanskrit speakers that the V-P publishes only in English? It seems discriminatory that big-money [the Batten family] and established interests [your current subscribers] get to control the mode of communication used by our leading local news source.
Perhaps our gov't should next dictate that the V-P, on alternate days of the week, publish in various other languages.
"Critics [may] claim, incorrectly, that [this rule] represents a government takeover. Without rules, though, it is likely that [English speakers] - rather than [all of our global community] - would assume the role of gatekeeper, choking off access to [non-English speakers] and choking off the innovation that is inherently connected to [principles of free speech].
It only seems fair.
What will happen if no net nutrality. check out facebooks action
Facebook now block protest groups against corporations. Facebook on its own decided that you cannot start a group to protest BP, or any other corporate sponsor. With no net neutrality money will rule. We have already seen where google has signed a deal to have their pages load faster than competitors.
What part of freedom don't Progressives understand?
Oh, that's easy - they understand that their mission in life is to attack freedom wherever it gets in the way of their agenda.
HANDS OFF!
The web is the last and best hope for pure, unbridled communication left on earth. While the government can (and should) exercise its enforcement authority over crime that is web-based or web abetted, there should be absolutely no regulation of the web. Let me repeat that, lest anyone misunderstands: the government should have no role in regulating the web. The results of any such regulation are there to see in China and Iran. Private money was spent to develop all web content and the government should simply butt out. If anyone thinks for one minute that, once the government gets its hands in this game, that the ultimate objective isn't control, well, look at the telephone, the railroads, the trucking industry, the airlines, the telegraph, the airwaves, your health care, your schools, the food you eat, and the car you drive. Let the free market work! It is imperfect, of course, but when did the government perfect anything other than intrusion in our daily lives. LEAVE IT ALONE!
We have seen how the free market works
Chyina is a good example of unregulated commerce. Chinese made dry wall, Chinese made dog food, Chinese made children's toys to name a few. We have seen unregulated communications at work with the Sinclair network (not the Norfolk Sinclairs) when one man decided a political speech would not be broadcast on his group (one of the nations largest) of stations. We already see how one station is controlled by a political money.) The net WILL be regulated, the question is by who. Will the regulators beguide nby whats best for America or will the regulators be guided by greed.