Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The House passed an amendment to the Republican spending bill on Thursday to prevent the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from using funding to implement net neutrality rules, which Republicans strongly object to.
Communications subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) offered the amendment, which passed in a 244 to 181 vote.
Shall we peek at who voted against freedom of speech?
Four Republicans and ten Democrats did not vote with their party, according to a government affairs director following the proceeding who said the lawmakers' motivations likely vary.
If anything the basic principals of net neutrality promote freedom of speech.
Without these safeguards in place a ISP could strangle off small sites like city data.... You do realize the internet is operating under these principals right now?
If anything the basic principals of net neutrality promote freedom of speech.
Without these safeguards in place a ISP could strangle off small sites like city data.... You do realize the internet is operating under these principals right now?
Agreed.
More government control which the Dems back. Price controled, tiered net brought to you by government. Big government involvement in the private sector is not needed. Let the people decide not corrupt government.
Why do you oppose net neutrality? You realize that "neutrality" refers to internet traffic handling, and not to speech content, right? There seems to be a deliberate effort by net neutrality opponents to confuse the term.
The Republicans just voted to give Corporations Power to make slower or block customers from accessing certain sites, competitors sites perhaps, sites that bad moth them.
My guess is this goes nowhere. It will not be in the Senate version of the bill, and will be unlikely be agreed to when the House and Senate agree on the final bill.
Agreed.
More government control which the Dems back. Price controled, tiered net brought to you by government. Big government involvement in the private sector is not needed. Let the people decide not corrupt government.
Hmm, interesting that you say you agreed with the post you quoted then went on to say the exact opposite of what you said you agreed to....
You do realize the internet is operating under these principals right now?
Not quite. There are ISPs that currently throttle bandwidth to certain sites and certain types of traffic. I think that the push for net neutrality is becoming stronger in an effort to prevent this type of ISP behavior from spreading.
If anything the basic principals of net neutrality promote freedom of speech.
Without these safeguards in place a ISP could strangle off small sites like city data.... You do realize the internet is operating under these principals right now?
That's fear driven. Hasn't happened but the "fear" has been used to sell this. Fix it when they see it's broke.
Corporate telecoms are spending Millions lobbying for the defeat of net neutrality so they can begin to charge for what is free now.
The OP thinks this is a free speech issue....LOL
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
