site Search:


 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery






how-to block ads


 
Search Topic:
Uniqs:
163
Share Topic
Post a:
Post a:
AuthorAll Replies


Michael C

join:2009-06-26
Cedar Park, TX

Congressional Conservatives agree with Net Neutrality

……when only given the definition.

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) chastised Genechowski in a House subcommittee hearing, and asked him how on Earth the FCC had the authority to “regulate the Internet.” See, Mr. Rogers is confused about Net Neutrality. He thinks it’s all about the FCC regulating content on the Net and picking winners and losers, which is precisely what Net Neutrality prevents ISPs AND government from doing. At 2:47:00 a confused Rep. Rogers agrees with Net Neutrality when presented it’s definition by Genechowski…

»c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/03/2···lan.aspx

The biggest threat to Net Neutrality is allowing continued mis-information about it to spread. It’s not a socialist takeover of the Internet as the lobbyist FUD would have you believe.

Ask yourself this, “If I were on a phone call with a close friend, and either AT&T or the FCC were listening in on the call without either of us knowing, would I be OK with them a) listening in on the call in the first place and b) garbling or disconnecting my call if they didn’t like what they heard?” Of course you wouldn’t be OK with this. You’d feel your right to privacy had been violated. So why on Earth then would it be OK to allow either an ISP or the government to do that with your data as well? This is precisely what Net Neutrality is designed to protect…your right to data privacy.

Sunday, 03-Jun 09:26:10 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 12.5 years online © 1999-2012 dslreports.com.
Most commented news this week
Hot Topics