i guess this is kinda confusing... support freedom, support the consumer, support internet independence from regulation by government, therefore oppose net neutrality. geddit?

Here's a little bit about the Author of the Anti-Net Neutrality article you posted mink
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Brendan_Steinhauser

Here is an alternative View Point
"Allowing broadband carriers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success...A number of justifications have been created to support carrier control over consumer choices online; none stand up to scrutiny."
- Vint Cerf
http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html

you know how a venn diagram works?

so i can agree with him on one thing, and disagree on others.

we all want a free internet, remember.

and sony are a big company but it doesn't mean they aren't losing sales due to people deciding they don't want to pay for their crap any more.

i guess maybe i trust the market on this one a bit more than you, that's all.

i don't always trust the market. and i stopped traffic in london in 2003.

would you rather i choose an antiwar guy like Ron Paul? He is also against handing the FCC regulatory powers. I am always surprised that guys like you are in favour of that sort of thing, and you call it "freeing the internet!" but there ya go.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/764
try this one fedquip... suggesting that Ron Paul is in favour of free open competition on the internet, as opposed to government imposed "neutrality" regulation. Meaning: he is pro freedom, and therefore anti FCC. Whereas: you are pro FCC and you trust them to keep things "free".

You don't want big business to have control over the internet, but you think the government having control is OK?

i just don't get it.

Nobody should have control except the consumer, which is EVERYBODY. Not the FCC. Not AT&T. Us.

"The companies who supply you with internet connections want to charge you different rates for different stuff, to encourage investment in better stuff.

How naive.

explain, or i'll take advice from people who can

you like the FCC?

Wow... this is confusing. So you have three groups: net regulation, net neutrality, and anti-net neutrality. But the net regulation and net neutrality groups are actually after similar aims because they both have a body controlling some form of the internet?

can't remember ever seeing a condescending video summary on the sift before. or maybe you normally talk to friends like they're 8 years old... its hard to tell.

anyhow, this is a dumb video too.

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.

Well considering Ted Stevens is the guy currently in charge of regulating it, no I don't trust the government owning the internet. But Large telcos are lobbying to the government to implement systems in which they have an advantage over the consumer.

AT&T can if they want limit their subscribers to AT&Tsift, by making access to videosift impossible, how does this help the free market? That is why the people should elect officials that will ensure nothing like this happens, if a law is needed to preserve what we already have, then so be it, times are changin' right.

What it comes down to is AT&T ownes the wires that hold the internet together, but they want to own all the content that travels through those wires, call it what you will, I don't support that.

Expired in Queue - 4 day limit.

"electing officials" doesn't seem to work as well as "changing network provider".

i don't think that the restricted internet model worked very well for aol in the end, did it.

and remember, videosift is based on copyright "bending", so what you really want is less copyright regulation, not more government officials deciding what is and isn't "neutral".

already you have to pay for some sites, and not for others, and big sites have more advertising power, there is no level playing field, and you can't legislate to make one.