http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6081882.html

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Oh wow.

That country is going is accelerating it's travel down the drain.
America is certainly proving itself to be the land of the free.

Edit: lol -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H69eCYcDcuQ

It's times like these I'm glad I live in a hardly-relevant-country.

If you use the internet, it affects you.

The USA pretty much 'owns' the internet. They have all the key infrastructure inside their borders. If they wanted to, they could switch off China. Luckily (and surprisingly) the US government aren't messing it up like that or using it for nefarious purposes.

Now the corporations have it. I don't know whether to feel safer or not.

Major SUKAGE!
...

lol internet

However, this still has to pass the Senate. If you live Stateside, please write a letter to your two senators telling them how important this is.

Will (can) this result in lots of sites moving outside the country?

There's more support for this in the senate, so hopefully net neutrality will remain.
(It has to pass the senate as well as the house, for those who don't know America's system.)

Seeing how politicians are rich and rich people in the US only care about staying rich I'd say theres a good chance of this passing.

Yes but those politicians probably don't have shares in the telco industry. I'm not sure they're allowed to have shares.

Still, doesn't stop the telco industry from bribing them all.

And as an aside, the "greedy rich" is a worldwide disease, not just an american one. It's just that american greed gets more coverage.

Its time like these I'm glad I don't live in a country run by Bush.

You should, because this entire situation is Bush's idea and doing.

You should, because this entire situation is Bush's idea and doing.
I lol'd.

Its time like these I'm glad I don't live in a country run by Bush.
Are there times when you AREN'T glad you don't live in a country run by Bush?

If this does get passed, there will surely still be ISP's that won't use it? "Sign up to us and get unbiased access"?

If this does get passed, there will surely still be ISP's that won't use it? "Sign up to us and get unbiased access"?

I'm temped to move to the US and start such a company.

Are there times when you AREN'T glad you don't live in a country run by Bush?
It's not just him, though, is it? He's a useful figurehead for hatred because he's so obviously a cretin, but he didn't vote this through on his own, did he, and he didn't elect himself (this time).

America is a place governed by the greedy rich and populated mostly by terrifyingly ignorant morons and its entire "culture" appreas to be designed to perpetuate and exploit this fact. It's the ultimate dystopia, and I'm only sorry I have to have as much to do with it as I do here.

If this does get passed, there will surely still be ISP's that won't use it? "Sign up to us and get unbiased access"?
I'm sure Speakeasy (http://www.speakeasy.net/) will be that way - they're extremely open-minded. For instance, they don't care if you share their internet over a public Wi-Fi. They're Penny Arcade's weapon of choice, it seems.

Well, yes, the capitalists are the real problem.

But it doesn't help to have Bush add stuff to bills after they've been passed, or to scare the public into thinking that gay marriage is somehow a greater threat than Al Al-Qaeda so everyone would vote for the conservative candidates that support it.

I'm more annoyed at the voters who actually fall for their manipulation, though. If it weren't for them, Bush wouldn't even be in office.
Though I suppose that some of them seem to be realizing that he's doing a terrible job now...
http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

But it doesn't help to have Bush add stuff to bills after they've been passed, or to scare the public into thinking that gay marriage is somehow a greater threat than Al Al-Qaeda so everyone would vote for the conservative candidates that support it.
You don't understand, Pigbuster. The *****s are on the move, and they won't stop until they've accomplished their mission: to decimate the structure of the traditional family completely! That's right, no more moms and dads. It will be all gay and single-parent families if they have it their way.

Skip global warming and finding Osama, this is far more important.

You don't understand, Pigbuster. The *****s are on the move, and they won't stop until they've accomplished their mission: to decimate the structure of the traditional family completely! That's right, no more moms and dads. It will be all gay and single-parent families if they have it their way.
Sure, and everyone will get infected and get gay themself until we have to rely on in vitro fertilization.
Skip global warming and finding Osama, this is far more important.
Of course, we don't need a clean environment anyway.
We can dig huge, underground bunkers beneath Antarctica and use alien technology to filter the polluted air and water.
Go, war on terror, go!

I keep wondering if the war on terror will ever end. Surely, more war causes more terror causes more war causes more terror causes more...

I keep wondering if the war on terror will ever end. Surely, more war causes more terror causes more war causes more terror causes more...
It ends when they manage to explode the earth of course :)

I keep wondering if the war on terror will ever end. Surely, more war causes more terror causes more war causes more terror causes more...
Of course it won't. As long as there are people there'll be disagreements, and there'll be nut jobs. And as long as there are disagreements and nut jobs there will be terrorism. I mean, if Bush managed to wipe out Islamic terrorism he'd still have all the animal rights extremists, and if he wiped those out he'd have the Irish situation to deal with, and if he stamped that out, he'd have to turn his attentions to the renegade Fathers 4 justice splinter groups, and once they were dealt with he'd have to turn to that bunch of Christian extremists who started attacking people who showed the Jerry Springer opera, and once they were history...

You can't wage a war on a concept. You have to wage it on an enemy. Otherwise it will go on forever.

You can't wage a war on a concept. You have to wage it on an enemy. Otherwise it will go on forever.That's probably what they want, USA need wars to feel good about themselves.

But in the Net Neutrality topic, some senator had this to say on why he's against Net Neutrality:

http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/?entry_id=1512499
There's one company now you can sign up and you can get a movie delivered to your house daily by delivery service. Okay. And currently it comes to your house, it gets put in the mail box when you get home and you change your order but you pay for that, right.

But this service isn't going to go through the interent and what you do is you just go to a place on the internet and you order your movie and guess what you can order ten of them delivered to you and the delivery charge is free.

Ten of them streaming across that internet and what happens to your own personal internet?

I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?

Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially.

So you want to talk about the consumer? Let's talk about you and me. We use this internet to communicate and we aren't using it for commercial purposes.

We aren't earning anything by going on that internet. Now I'm not saying you have to or you want to discrimnate against those people [...]

The regulatory approach is wrong. Your approach is regulatory in the sense that it says "No one can charge anyone for massively invading this world of the internet". No, I'm not finished. I want people to understand my position, I'm not going to take a lot of time. [?]

They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck.

It's a series of tubes.

And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.

Now we have a separate Department of Defense internet now, did you know that?

Do you know why?

Because they have to have theirs delivered immediately. They can't afford getting delayed by other people.

[...]

Now I think these people are arguing whether they should be able to dump all that stuff on the internet ought to consider if they should develop a system themselves.

Maybe there is a place for a commercial net but it's not using what consumers use every day.

It's not using the messaging service that is essential to small businesses, to our operation of families.

The whole concept is that we should not go into this until someone shows that there is something that has been done that really is a viloation of net neutraility that hits you and me.Honestly, I can't make sense of half of what he says. Can you?

That's probably what they want, USA need wars to feel good about themselves.False. Most of the USA doesn't like it any better than you do.

Bush had a vendetta.

Here's my favourite part: "an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock".

Send me an internet about that would you? Congratulations! You just forfeited your right to an opinion about internet issues!

My impression of taking away net neutrality is like installing artificial and unnecessary toll booths on the internet.

I also think removing the neutrality is a way for the telcos to capture money from the emerging Voice over IP technology. This is what I believe is at the root of everything.

False. Most of the USA doesn't like it any better than you do.

Bush had a vendetta.I've been to a forum where americans that agree with Bush reside (ok so that's not all of USA, but still a pretty big chunk), and they do think like that. Heck, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else, it's just nearly impossible to not want to flame the crap out of everyone for how stupid and idiotic they are.

Yeah but there are fanatics for everything. It's hardly indicative of all of america.

Ctrl-Alt-Del had that same message up. That senator voted "no" to net neutrality.

Seriously, though, this is just sick. And incredibly hypocritical.

America says "We have freedom, come here!" Then they turn around when you get there and say "You can do EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING YOU WANT except for this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, etc."

I thought the First Amendment allowed freedom of speech. And what's the Internet if not speech?

On the subject of speech, I agree with jb.jones. Skype has forced telco's hands. And they're not happy.