Thank you for saving the internet for me today. Come for the "insta-karma", stay for the actual karma.

Go to Viharts videos description on youtube to find links to get involved
http://youtu.be/NAxMyTwmu_M

or the below links stolen from videosift video descriptin Hank vs Hank
http://videosift.com/video/Hank-vs-Hank-The-Net-Neutrality-Debate-in-3-Minutes

Please make a public comment here!
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/begin
Tell the FCC that they should reclassify broadband internet as a telecommunications (or "Common carrier") service. Right now broadband is regulated like TV or radio, which doesn't make sense.
This is a public comment for the public record...official government stuff... so you'll have to include your actual name and address.
You can also email the FCC directly here: http://dft.ba/-tell_the_FCC
If you want to help some organizations that work their butts off trying to fight the telecoms,
check out:
Save The Internet (from FreePress) http://www.savetheinternet.com/sti-home
Public Knowledge: http://www.publicknowledge.org/
And contact your congress people: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by Barseps.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Freddy-Wong-Saves-The-Internet

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Freddy-Wong-Saves-The-Internet

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Freddy Wong Saves The Internet has been added as a related post - related requested by lucky760 on that post.

Your video, Freddy Wong Saves The Internet, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

i found a video here about Reason's stance at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTshrURtcjU (Will Net Neutrality Save the Internet?). I'm not throwing the baby out with the bath water yet...>> ^waynef100:

this is intriguing can you provide an example? thanks!>> ^marinara:
reason.tv are hypocrites who want to wreck free speech by killing net neutrality.

>> ^MINK:
you're not all wrong there, qm. also don't forget ron paul is against "net neutrality" regulation, but the same people upvoting his videos also upvote "SAVE THE INTERNET!!!!" crap too. it's called kneejerking. or circlejerking.
but QM, your attitude to the principles of international law and sovereignty is also unacceptable, your assessment of the dangers of Iraq taking over the world in 45 minutes was wildly inaccurate, the amount of money spent on the war is completely unjustifiable, the corruption involved outweighs any good intentions on the part of the protagonists, and it is laughable that you would criticise a libertarian for "not leading enough" lolololol. just lololol. kthxbye.


Ron paul is against net neutrality regulation. Another word for net neutrality regulation is the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine requires that holders of broadcast licenses present controversial issues of public importance and do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. Key word: REQUIRES
Ron Paul, it would seem, is overwhelmingly consistent in his views on minimal government regulation.
Excellent use of quotations to skew the true meaning.

I know that this comment is old, but i have something to say.
Ron paul is against net neutrality regulation. Another word for net neutrality regulation is the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine requires that holders of broadcast licenses present controversial issues of public importance and do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. Key word: REQUIRES
Ron Paul, it would seem, is overwhelmingly consistent in his views on minimal government regulation.
Excellent use of quotations to skew the true meaning.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
you're not all wrong there, qm. also don't forget ron paul is against "net neutrality" regulation, but the same people upvoting his videos also upvote "SAVE THE INTERNET!!!!" crap too. it's called kneejerking. or circlejerking.

but QM, your attitude to the principles of international law and sovereignty is also unacceptable, your assessment of the dangers of Iraq taking over the world in 45 minutes was wildly inaccurate, the amount of money spent on the war is completely unjustifiable, the corruption involved outweighs any good intentions on the part of the protagonists, and it is laughable that you would criticise a libertarian for "not leading enough" lolololol. just lololol. kthxbye.

you're not all wrong there, qm. also don't forget ron paul is against "net neutrality" regulation, but the same people upvoting his videos also upvote "SAVE THE INTERNET!!!!" crap too. it's called kneejerking. or circlejerking.

but QM, your attitude to the principles of international law and sovereignty is also unacceptable, your assessment of the dangers of Iraq taking over the world in 45 minutes was wildly inaccurate, the amount of money spent on the war is completely unjustifiable, the corruption involved outweighs any good intentions on the part of the protagonists, and it is laughable that you would criticise a libertarian for "not leading enough" lolololol. just lololol. kthxbye.

Eddie and Friends are not happy.
http://pearljam.com/news/index.php?what=News#195
-
"AT&T's actions strike at the heart of the public's concerns over the power that corporations have when it comes to determining what the public sees and hears through communications media.

Aspects of censorship, consolidation, and preferential treatment of the internet are now being debated under the umbrella of "NetNeutrality." Check out The Future of Music or Save the Internet for more information on this issue."

bamdrew, the pro net neutrality videos are all condescending and dumb, that's kinda my point. i would downvote this if someone else posted it lol

Nebosuke is getting it... almost.
Net neutrality IS government regulation, hence Ron Paul and most libertarians would automatically reject the idea.
They say we should be free to choose where to buy our internet, and that is the best regulation you can get, better than slow governments being tempted into grabbing more control over things.

so you have 2 groups, "allow free and fair competition" and "enforce neutrality".

for the net neutrality regulation lobby, "saving the internet" therefore means giving it to the government, and we all know how democratic THAT would be... lol

please somebody, correct me if i am wrong. I am kinda playing devil's advocate here because the groupthink around net neutrality makes me suspicious.

I'm kinda with gorgonheap, although I don't know the full story i'll attempt a bit of devil's advocate (I am naturally skeptical about "save the internet" scaremongers).

If you listen to economists or IP engineers about Net Neutrality, you hear a different story. Ron Paul is against Net Neutrality for a reason.

As far as I can see, it's about the OPTION to pay more for a guaranteed level of call quality on Skype for example, or IPTV that doesn't say "buffering" every 5 seconds, instead of relying on a congested neutral "series of tubes" (!) which was never designed for this stuff.

I don't think it's about pavements, it's about finding a way to offer different levels of service for different needs. I also don't believe scare stories about AT&T suddenly charging me $2000 to get my email and making all anti establishment websites run at 56kbps. There's actually a lot of money in disestablismentarianism on the internet

At the moment, if you are an ISP, you are delivering people all this varied stuff without being able to charge more for the heavy stuff. Therefore other people downloading movie torrents are getting in the way of my "meaningful" Skype session. That actually does fuck up the economy because I can't work as efficiently, and nobody can take my money to improve the service.

Now you could say it's bad to give good quality internet to only the people who can afford it, but your alternative is either a)give the same bad internet to everybody or b)communism.

Let me risk an analogy: Imagine if a supermarket sold random quality tomatoes at a single fixed price and on some days you had no way of getting a good tomato however much you paid. Wouldn't make sense, would it? Ahh but it would be soooo egalitarian and "fair" wouldn't it (but nobody would have an incentive to grow nice tomatoes... and we're back in the USSR).


Sure, if someone tells you Net Neutrality is about freedom, and you don't look to closely at the technical side or the economics, then you are outraged by this stuff. But just because it SOUNDS like the kind of thing you support, doesn't mean it actually is. You might be fighting on the wrong side out of a misunderstanding.