Full Coverage
CBC - http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2006/11/02/tech-neutrality.html


Personally, I really want to keep the internet the way it is. I can do anything I want, and anything I need to do. Everything is easy to access, and easy to find and use. This result of this debate can drastically change a lot of things. Just thinking about this makes me want to not head into web development as a career...

--- "All websites are equal" ... but some websites are more equal than others??


Do you want your ISP's choosing what you can view, and can't view?

No, but I really doubt it would affect me. I don't search for information on how to make bombs. Hey, now's a good time to start .

I'm fucking sick of people thinking they should be allowed to control what people view/do on the internet. If restrictions like this start occurring, I'm going on a killing spree. There was some dumbass congressman here who proposed a law to eliminate internet anonymity. I'm assuming his idea crashed and burned, as it deserved.

That's not the only concern. As I remember it, they were talking about different "Tiers" of the internet, and certain Tiers you could only access by paying a certain amount.

This would mean that the 'good' information (i.e., the information that's important enough to pay for) would only be accessible if you were a paying subscriber.

Yes, part of the concern about net neutrality is to regulate the content, but if you have any regulation over content at all, that means that ANY unregulated content would have to be classified as "Unregulated" and, to keep out complainers and suers and to keep profits up, would have to be paid for. SOMEONE is deciding what's okay for you to read. I'd rather be the judge of that.

Regulation means (in my reasoning) that if you want to host your own website on a freely accessible Tier of the internet, you'd have to submit it for review to ensure that it is 'safe' and, sadly enough, not damaging enough to an ISP's revenue. Usually services like these cost something, and so you, the web author, would end up both paying for a decent web rating, and censoring your own content to make sure it won't fail the review. And if everything is being regulated/reviewed, there's probably going to be a lot of material (which will include a lot of GOOD material) that will end up being completely restricted.

[Still my own conjecture] In the lower Tiers, it'd be really hard to unclog your internet from crap, because the corporations would have so much control over your viewing framework and, very likely, even your interface. They'd probably be choked with advertising.

speaking of illicit internet activity, though, a catholic priest in the U.S. was arrested for sending an email with an attached picture of some brownies he cooked, because internet filters interpreted 'Pictures of Brownies' as 'Pictures of pre-teen girls from a community Club'.

Wow, this is a scary issue. Imagine doing your fourth grade project on Ben Franklin and typing "Ben Franklin" into Google, then when you go to view the search page, you get something like "ACCESS DENIED." Wouldn't that suck?
Imagine having to pay a fee for like, "Gaming Bandwidth." Or not being able to view CNN.com or the BBC because Comcast wants their news to have your attention. Imagine how terrible it would be if a company owned a road system or bridge and charged an outrageous toll. Maybe the internet should be one of those government handled things... but UHG that would not be good either.

I think it would be helpful if we utilize the current free system to e-mail our representatives with our views. Sure, what difference can SEN make, but maybe if we all send an e-mail laden with 1st and 14th Amendment non-discriminatory policy supports and logical arguments that show this will infringe our rights to equal protection under law and free speech, maybe it would make a difference. Maybe e-mail people to get them to e-mail our representatives.

If ISPs tried to deny my access to any site, quite frankly I would start up a local intranet with my neighborhood and friends using some crappy cables and a desktop pc server with free hosting.
Gradually, people would start spreading the idea through word of mouth, accelerated by telecommunications, which face it, they can't censor, and get other people to do the same thing, then start linking them.

IMO the only thing that should be zealously prosecuted on the internet is child pornography, internet predators, malicious hacking, and malware creation. Other than that, I think everything should go such as piracy and unlimited (service plan payed for) uncontrolled bandwidth, etc.

I still don't see the logic behind regulating what we can see on the internet besides profit and propaganda. Wait... Nevermind, I get it now. Honestly, having laws like this put into effect would cause a lot more trouble than it's worth. In the event of internet regulation, I'm sure Anonymous would swoop to the rescue and dump a few barrels of lulz into the tubes. We could all become iTerrorists!

I thought internet anonymity was reccommended for security reasons . I guess that's why it crashed and burned, if it did.

Lol i could care less if our web freedoms were infringed. The interwebz is for people with no life

.. o damn that would be me

Nerdy where you planning on starting your killing spree? Ill bring the molotovs >:D

Srsly, Web anonymity was probably made for shit like anti indetity theft and stuff, so its staying fo sho'

That quote perfectly reflects my feelings.