ok i upvoted and i want my vote back bitch

comcast is buying NBC TODAY!!!
That means TOMORROW they are going to be throttling your traffic so they can target you with NBC crap.

I seem to remember a certain owner of railroads picking winners and losers for everyone who bought transport. These things aren't abstract, you have to find obscure crap like this that ignores the facts. The facts are that the owners have to forgo profits in order to handle internet traffic equally.

I hope i really burned blankfist
flameon!

It's funny that nobody cared about net neutrality until AT&T's CEO started blowing smoke about Google not paying their share for using "his" pipes, and threatening to charge them on top of what they already pay for bandwidth. He was quickly joined by several others, who saw a great chance to grab some quick money by double-dipping.

It's not like this is an issue the left-wing created...the ISPs themselves started it by threatening extortion.

I'm getting the idea that reason.tv is really nothing more than a propaganda machine for Corporate Amerika.

>> ^Stormsinger:
I'm getting the idea that reason.tv is really nothing more than a propaganda machine for Corporate Amerika.


They're pro-free market, not pro-corporation. You can read about them here: http://reason.org/about/

@blankfist They can -say- anything they like. But judging by the last few videos you've posted from them, their videos spell corporate.

@Stormsinger, the majority of Libertarians defend any business from any control under government bureaucracy, but they also understand corporations are a creation of government, and without government we wouldn't have corporations.

That is a fact.

I don't believe you can call reason pro-corporatist, but if you have proof I'm open to hear it. I will up the ante a bit here and say if you approve of government intervention in business, then you're a pro-corporatist.

If you don't like the word corporate, then replace it with free-market, pro-business lunatics.

They're supporting the company that threatened extortion and trying to spin net neutrality as a completely unprovoked attack by the left. Which is nothing more than a lie.

But you use whatever word you like. I don't really give a fuck.

This is really appropriately titled. They are trying to convince Dummies that Net Neutrality is not important.

If the internet is not maintained at it's current (mostly) neutral state, you can say goodbye to Hulu, Skype, and YouTube. Why would the big corporate providers allow you to do stuff for free when they can charge you for their products? Say goodbye to innovation, say hello to the latest version of pay-per-view.

That is what net neutrality is about. The little guy having the ability to share their stuff for the cost of bandwidth.

This "don't regulate until there's a problem" argument is a joke. The cliff is in view. You want to put the brakes on now, or after we've gone over the cliff?

Check out a real video about net neutrality: http://www.videosift.com/video/Open-Internet-The-Argument-For-Net-Neutrality

Okay, reason is just plain wrong about net neutrality. For one, we have net neutrality in effect now by FCC fiat. That's why you don't "have many cases of it happening" now -- the FCC is cracking down on companies who violate it (like Time Warner throttling bittorrent).

The proposed legislation wouldn't create a situation where the FCC just calls it as it sees it, that's the reality as it exists today without guiding law placing limits on it.

The FCC itself, being subjected to "political forces" realizes that they can't just willy-nilly make decisions based on who bribes them, they know they need to set out an objective set of standards, and follow them.

In case you care, here are the four principles the FCC laid out as what they mean by network neutrality. They are:

• To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
  
• To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
  
• To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
  
• To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
  

>> ^Stormsinger:
If you don't like the word corporate, then replace it with free-market, pro-business lunatics.
They're supporting the company that threatened extortion and trying to spin net neutrality as a completely unprovoked attack by the left. Which is nothing more than a lie.
But you use whatever word you like. I don't really give a fuck.


Corporatism does not equal free market. Corporations are government created and regulated. Free markets are not.

As I said, I really don't give a fuck what you want to call it. Reason.tv produced a spin piece, to excuse and support AT&T's and other corporate ISP's extortion.

That's hardly a libertarian stance. I'm truly surprised you think it is. Wake up and smell the coffee...what they -say- they stand for means diddly-squat. What they -do- says corporate apologists.

Sniff...this video reeks. It smells remarkably like a creationist "science" piece.

No mention of P2P networks? Broadcast censorship (however infuriating) is completely irrelevant to the discussion. I especially like the bit where their grudge against Al Gore is what prompted them to "dig deeper". Very classy.

No business is more secure and profitable than a monopoly. If you have the ways and means, why would you not want to make it impossible for anyone to challenge your position? It's fundamental strategy.

The main problem with this whole debate is that most cable companies are legal monopolies. You can't enjoy that status and hope to be completely free from government forces. I would rather see them open up telecom and TV than introduce legislation on it. I think the backlash against Verizon has been a good indicator about market forces lashing out against net neutrality violators. However comcast has been actively throttling bittorrent speeds for awhile now. As a legal monopoly, many people don't have any other option for high speed internet via cable.

For dummies indeed.

Net Nutrality 'regulates' the internet inasmuch as it prevents corporations from regulating the flow and content of the internet. That's some deceptive, backwards thinking for you, but par for the course for a magazine so un'reason'able that they have to put 'reason' in the title. Big downvote.

Moving this video to blankfist's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

*promote

Self promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, March 11th, 2010 11:07am PST - promote requested by original submitter blankfist.

*lies
*money

Adding video to channels (Lies, Money) - requested by NetRunner.

Downvote for blatant misinformation. I'd go into more depth, but it looks like all my points have already been made above (probably because this post is four months old). One thing I will point out is that their "example" of a Net Neutrality issue was ridiculously weak -- I would point instead toward Comcast throttling P2P users down to nothing.

Also, when has the government ever made or kept anything fast or unregulated? Has anyone watched TV, listened to radio or driven a car? Would anyone even consider those neutral, at all, like even a little? The government never misses an opportunity to regulate, ever. If not today, next administration after some other girl commits suicide from something, they will be forced by political pressure to do something, no matter how liberty restricting. You can not fight this phrase as a politician "think about the children....". Any talk of the FCC keeping it open today will be over once they flex more might over it.

The only reason we are having this debate at all is because of government caused media monopolies. Get rid of legal monopoly protection from cable and telco, and there isn't any need for this debate. This is just covering up bad legislation with even worse legislation.

Yes, the free market will save us all.

Just ask Goldman Sachs.

>> ^rougy:

Yes, the free market will save us all.
Just ask Goldman Sachs.


Who's chairman and advisers run the board overseeing their regulation, government will save us all.