Originally Posted by ElMikeTheMike
This is the most confusing topic ever. I thought net neut was a bad thing.
There's two sides to every coin. If the "save the interwebs" crowd wins we get bigger government and more bureaucracies. If the opposition gets their way then... well I guess censorship in certain areas will follow.
Both sides have their pros and cons, so I guess it all comes down to the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately, due to a lot of misinformation on both sides many people just have no clue as to what is really going on. Most just go for the "net neutrality sounds like a good thing and corporations are evil, so I guess I'm for net neutrality" thing without giving it any further thought.
The issue is complicated, highly political, and with lots of money on the line. I already posted some links covering both sides of the issue earlier in this thread, but I suggest you look for more sources to get a complete view.
Basically, with net neutrality things will remain pretty much unchanged, except for the increased government presence (I thought we all agreed that the government was evil
) because net neutrality will require government bodies like the FCC to "decide" what is neutral or not; we are basically giving into a nany state. The good side is... well, everyone here will tell you the same thing so repeating it is redundant.
Originally Posted by RickJS
Uhh that dontregulate.org site is wrong, its saying that google, yahoo, and ms are agaisnt net neutrality. I don't know microsofts stance on net neutrality, but yahoo and google support it.
The video is pretty clear when it says google and the like to be for net neutrality. All the big software and internet companies are for net neutrality and most ISPs against it (among other companies that are responsible for the actual infrastructure of the internet). Ask yourself why. Ask really hard because this peculiar alignment of forces is very relevant to the whole issue. Hint: Money