Rep. Edward Markey, chairman of a House subcommittee on the Internet, has introduced legislation in support of "net neutrality". The bill would prevent broadband Internet providers from unreasonable interference with subscribers' access to content. Some service providers, such as Comcast, say they need to take reasonable steps to manage traffic on their networks.
Some believe that government intervention is required to preserve the "open architecture" of the Internet and prevent content providers from being subjected to "unreasonably discriminatory practices by broadband network providers." Others believe that the government should have no role in regulating the Internet although Markey denies that his bill would do that. The bill also would require communications regulators to study the issue and hold public hearings.
Some believe that government intervention is required to preserve the "open architecture" of the Internet and prevent content providers from being subjected to "unreasonably discriminatory practices by broadband network providers." Others believe that the government should have no role in regulating the Internet although Markey denies that his bill would do that. The bill also would require communications regulators to study the issue and hold public hearings.
i agree, but im leaning more towards it honestly
the internet should be free, if we go dont go down this road
we will be no better than china and korea and other places that censer it
100% correct. Comcast would still be able to regulate traffic at whatever they define as 'reasonable.'
ex. when attacked you're allowed to use 'reasonable and neccesary' force to defend yourself.
it's the same thing for this law.
i support net neutrality to an extent. i don't think the government should be censoring the internet but if ISPs want to that's their business and if people don't like it, they can switch providers. simple as that. free enterprise at work.
ex. when attacked you're allowed to use 'reasonable and neccesary' force to defend yourself.
it's the same thing for this law.
i support net neutrality to an extent. i don't think the government should be censoring the internet but if ISPs want to that's their business and if people don't like it, they can switch providers. simple as that. free enterprise at work.
Don't get me wrong, I am uneasy about government involvement in anything, but what do you do when there are no third party providers on your phone line, the phone company filters its DSL, and obviously there is only a single provider of cable access that also filters? Some residences are still too physically distant to get DSL so they may be limited to that monopolized cable internet. Municipal fiber would look a might more attractive I would think...
I agree with Markey, as this bill would ensure that the internet is NOT regulated.
Americans already have plenty of regulation by the U.S government, K thanks.
Americans already have plenty of regulation by the U.S government, K thanks.
What do you think the AT&Ts, Time Warners, News Corps, and Comcasts would do if there was no government regulation? We definitely need regulation of these corrupt companies, even more than we have today.
Regulation from the U.S government could fall under a variety of terms........
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.