Where the Candidates Stand On Net Neutrality

nmpost writes "Net neutrality is one of the biggest issues with regard to the internet today. At the heart of the issues is how much control ISPs will be allowed to have over their networks. Each candidate has come out with a strong position on the matter, and whoever wins will have a drastic effect on the future of the internet. Barack Obama has been a proponent of net neutrality. Under his watch, the FCC has implemented net neutrality rules. These restrictions did not apply to wireless networks, though; a gaping loophole that will be problematic in the future, as mobile internet is exploding in popularity. Until it is addressed, Obama can only be given a barely passing grade with regard to net neutrality. Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has come down on the other side of the issue. The former Massachusetts governor strongly opposes net neutrality. According to Politico, Romney believes net neutrality will restrict ISPs, and that they alone should govern their networks. The governor has stated that he wants as little regulation of the internet as possible."

Comments

Your counterpoint makes no sense

[SuperKendall]

Yes: every ISP/TV provider out there counts Netflix against your bandwidth cap, but not the pay-per-view choices you get through their service.

That is not ANYTHING like your metaphor.

You can access ANYTHING. They block NOTHING.

You are taking the fact that they give you access to some local content for free, and twisting that into claiming the network is somehow taking something away from you! Incredible!!

And yet, Network Neutrality supporters constantly use distorted logic just like this in order to make claims that we need Network Neutrality.

These are the beginnings of non-neutral networks.

No, they are add-ons to a data plan. They do nothing whatsoever to remove freedom you have to access any resource on the network with full equality. If the content they have is not compelling or not easily found, you can and will simply go elsewhere - possibly even for the same content!

Here's a puzzle for you; just how would ANY proposed network neutrality stop the "evil" practice of giving you more bandwidth than you paid for?

Are you thinking it would make the networks charge you for that content too even though it's local? Hell, why stop there, the cable company should charge you for accessing content on your home server because YOU are violating "neutrality" by having local content that requires fewer hops across the network! I guess that would leave you ecstatic.

That's the really sad part about every example I've ever seen come out of a network neutrality supporter, is that the actual regulations would prevent none of what offends them.

like what happened when we let the banks "govern themselves."

When was that? Because banks have been heavily regulated almost from existence, and any malfeasance from banks is generally a direct result of government trying to dictate what banks should be able to do.