1. I think this whole WikiLeaks stuff will force the US government to evaluate its stand on net neutrality

   1. The Supreme Court already through out Net Neutrality once as unconstitutional before the Wiki Leaks thing blew up. The FCC and groups pushing Net Neutrality reformulated their plan and now once again pushed it through.

      I would expect this to once again return to the Supreme Court.

      Essentially this is like saying that if you sell a product, you have to allow your competition to have access to your customers so they can compete against you no matter what.

2. The US Government is for sure pissed off about Wiki Leaks, so I see them pushing laws to be able to ban the site or whatever. It’s just too bad it will affect the whole internet.

   Reminds me of communism where nobody could say anything bad about the government without being shot afterwards. Censorship in full effect…

   But hey, that’s just me and I might be wrong.

   1. I recommend you to check http://henrymakow.ca, you will find there great resources to understanding why America is like this today

   2. It defeats the purpose of the Internet. I’d like to get all the information I want without worrying how censorship would limit the amount of data I can get.

      1. I am totally with you on this one. Nonetheless, the FCC is only doing what they are *paid* to do. The many millions in dirty money that the carriers slip to congress and government agencies usually produce exactly the result they want.

   3. A depressing thought. Every individual should have a choice how to use the internet in his/her own way. People have unique tastes. Companies should have no business deciding for them what content gets delivered or how quickly especially if they’re paying for the services.

3. Hopefully this crap doesn’t happen because people will start talking about freedom of speech and stuff..just go get the guy who did this an call it an day.

   “Black Seo Guy “Signing Off”

   1. Agreed…no reason to punish the masses. Censoring the net is a door that, if opened, will NEVER shut. As for killing him…I’m actually surprised he operated as long as he did.

      1. Unscrupulous individuals or companies are not the majority and yet they are slowly influencing changes that could affect all Internet users.

4. This is all confusing. I thought net neutrality was created to stop ISPs from prioritizing certain traffic. Now, it seems like they are using the “Net Neutrality” name to censor the Internet.

   1. Well, it’s been said that a good compromise is a deal that leaves both sides unhappy. 🙁

5. I think their should be an open discussion about how to deal with leaking “U.S. secrets”, but nothing should be changed yet. The internet is a booming industry … Facebook is going public soon … shit is happening.

   As always, love ya Shoemoney.

   1. I agree with you. However, if Facebook sits on its laurels and stays complacent, it will inevitably suffer the same fate as MySpace and other forgotten social networks did. (By the way, where is Justin’s follow-up post on Facebook advertising?)

6. I think you have fallen for the leftist “net neutrality” disinformation campaign. “Net neutrality” at it’s core, is an excuse for the government to intrude more deeply into our lives. Your examples are disingenuous, because there is already too much ‘neutrality’ to allow any of your scenarios to actually happen. For instance, Apple trying to prevent you from seeing websites critical of Apple would be quick economic suicide, and I don’t think Jobs is that stupid. The internet has a life of its own, and even the PRC is having trouble with censoring the ‘net.

   On the topic of Julian Assange, he’s a pompous asshole. But it is not possible for a non-citizen who does not reside in the US (and who is not physically present in the US) to violate US law. So, maybe we can classify him as an “enemy combatant” and go after him — but not without making him bigger and stronger than he already is. Ever hear of the Streisand Effect?

   Most of the stuff he and his minions leaked actually makes the US look good compared to most other countries.

   Our government getting all torqued out of shape over WikiLeaks was exactly the wrong response. The right thing would be to study how the leaks happened, and fix the process while pointedly ignoring the strutting asshole(s).

   1. Bottom line, more control, less quality, less freedom, resulting in less access due to less competition.

      1. But a lot of the arguments I see are based on assumptions. We don’t really know how it would pan out yet. Given time we’ll see how this would help users. Let’s just all hope that it is indeed as non-discriminatory as it is purported to be.

7. – “…we should find him, and… kill him” – hehe

   1. I guess we are just going to have to wait until things get really bad and we all waste a lot of money before there is sufficient motivation to do the rules the right way. I hate to think about how far back this will end up setting internet innovation.

   2. How come only the comments that agree to your post are only accepted in the thread? 😛

      1. If you read my prior comment carefully, you will see that I disagreed with Jeremy, and it was still published. Why do you make such a silly accusation?

   3. The topic of net neutrality remains hotly debated. The tech community was jarred by the rumor that Verizon and Google were near a deal on tiered Internet service, a claim the two companies subsequently denied.

   4. You think we should kill Assange? I hope you can’t really be that misinformed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL-fpqZhhzM

8. I believe that there is really no actual law in the United States that enforces net neutrality. However, an informal arrangement has been in place for many years. Net neutrality essentially levels the playing field for commercial websites, ensuring that a small online bookstore can still receive visitors, even if sites such as Amazon.com or Barnes&Noble.com are statistically more popular.

9. I like WikiLeaks though I believe that there are certain things that shouldn’t be divulged especially if it can pose a danger to other people’s lives. Otherwise, people could use a little more transparency since that would ensure accountability.

10. Do you think the FCC is just overreacting to the Wikileaks issue, Jeremy? I think the public deserves to know what’s going in and around the government, too, you know.

11. In a nutshell, network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. What do you think, Shoe?

    1. Which is exactly how it should be. I don’t see the point of any company or institution messing with what I can access online.

       1. If the government can do what is ethically correct to enforce it then I’d say go for it. But the thing is, the Internet has survived this long without any form of interference so I don’t see how this would improve the current online environment.

12. With 4G services already starting to be launched in the country, this comes at a bad time especially for those located in rural areas. I personally don’t really have a choice other than wireless and I’m going to be stuck with whatever service they choose to provide.

13. WikiLeaks.org’s release of nearly 76,000 secret military documents last month is something that really needs looking into…

    1. Agreed – there must be some repercussions that the government will deal with!

14. “And irresolute princes, to avoid present dangers, generally follow the neutral path, and are generally ruined. But when a prince declares himself gallantly in favour of one side, if the party with whom he allies himself conquers, although the victor may be powerful and may have him at his mercy, yet he is indebted to him, and there is established a bond of amity; and men are never so shameless as to become a monument of ingratitude by oppressing you. Victories after all are never so complete that the victor must not show some regard, especially to justice. But if he with whom you ally yourself loses, you may be sheltered by him, and whilst he is able he may aid you, and you become companions in a fortune that may rise again.”
    -Nicolo Machiavelli

15. This isn’t a compromise of any kind. I think it’s a full-scale capitulation to cable and the telecommunication companies. It won’t be long before there are website access tiers like the way there are channel tiers for cable and satellite TV.

    1. I see it this way: the ISP companies will start generating large incomes off of these services and also up their delivery of managed services. Then, after the model utterly fails to deliver benefits to consumers, the government won’t have the backing to institute net neutrality because it will decimate income lines for the companies. They will reason that people will then lose jobs because the companies won’t have the money to maintain the workforce, and thus at the end of the day it is just a case of the people not knowing what is best for them. Of course that won’t be true, but that’s how the companies will sell it and our politicians will buy it.

16. This is perhaps the hottest and most anticipated issue on the web these days (not counting that video of Miley Cyrus getting high off a bong with her so-called “friends”).

    1. I’ll leave the debate to everyone else. 🙂

       1. I’ll stay partial on this one. I think the FCC is just doing its job and this ruling is just the result of some individuals abusing the privilege of using the Internet.

          1. “The rules crafted by the commission will protect basic Internet values, provide a process for monitoring Internet openness and a recourse for innovators, consumers, or speakers harmed by improper practices. It will also provide predictability for Internet service providers so they can manage and invest in networks”

             Sounds good to me.

17. Shoe, do you think that this is a sign that existing ISP’s will have a much better service after this net neutrality agreement has finally crystallized?

    1. This isn’t a simple matter. The FCC’s job is not to pick sides in the debate between consumers and ISPs — its job is to make sure consumers have the rights they require. ISP’s still need to be allowed to make money and consumers still need to be allow to have choices. The ruling seems reasonable to allow both of those.

       1. If it’s for the good of both the internet users and service providers then it’s probably worth a shot.

18. I hate net neutrality and so does everyone. It’s awful because it stifles innovation. It’s awful because it limits free speech. It’s awful because it discriminates content. It’s awful because this that or something else.

    1. And that just about sums it up. Enough said.

    2. As long as there’s no unreasonable discrimination then I’d say it’s okay. Censorship when it comes to child porn and malware is good. But blocking the competition or anything that uses too much bandwidth is not.

       1. You do realize that the government invented the internet, right? It was a project from DARPA, called ARPANET, and was originally intended for military communications. It’s come a long way since and now I think the government (particularly the military) is slowly getting it back.

       2. I’m leaning towards wait-and-see on this one.

    3. I think you meant to say that you support net neutrality, not hate it.

19. Net neutrality is an ideal where there equal access to ALL web sites is ensured as well as to the latest online services. The question remains though is if regulations bring us closer to that ideal or not.

    1. I think this ruling is only favorable to the present web and telecommunication titans like Google, Verizon and Yahoo — in that order. Guess we’ll be expecting more raunchier censorship in the next few days, too.

20. I’d say any new legislation or regulation is inherently negative, no matter what it is and has a cost usually to the taxpayer. Your thoughts on this, Shoe?

21. Hmmm…all this for some brouhaha involving 76,000 secret documents scattered all over the Internet. I believe this is just the beginning of a more centralized and policed worldwide web.

    1. Perhaps BBS and dial-up will make a comeback if this shiznit won’t clear up as soon as possible.

    2. Too many regulations take out the fun out of Internet use. I can’t imagine a more policed web environment.

       1. Well, it’s bound to happen sooner or later. I guess a lot of us didn’t anticipate that it would be this soon.

22. I just came across this interesting piece of info while browsing other posts on the subject of net neutrality. Did you know that organizations and individuals that support Net neutrality include Amazon.com, Earthlink, EBay, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Skype, Vonage and Yahoo, the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, Seattle Times, St. Petersburg Times and Christian Science Monitor, Internet pioneer Vint Cerf, Tim Berners-Lee (creator of the World Wide Web), Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig and FCC Commissioner Michael Copps?

    1. Where’s the LIKE button when you need one? I think you’ve compiled all of ’em here, buddy.

23. So what’s going to happen to 4Chan after all this clears up? Those Internet bandits sure need to be taught a lesson.

24. Regulations have been known to kill innovation.

25. Is it just me or does anybody else here expect a resurrection of the WiMax and related technologies, especially when they realize not only can they restrict access but they don’t have to pay nearly as much in infrastructure?

26. No market, free or otherwise can exist without regulations due to something about enforcement of contracts, settling disputes and a million of other things. Why do you think pro-business organizations spend so much good money on lobbying?

27. I dunno. I still haven’t decided which side of the playing field I’m going to stick to.

28. “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin

29. Well, let’s just just wait for what’s going to happen in the next few days. Enough said. Time for a beer.

30. Government regulations never do anything to innovate – just the opposite really.

31. actually the purpose of the Internet is to share info,nowadays become a ‘tool’ for ppl to play around , leak image,info,privacy stuff .. .good or bad ?

32. Jeremy, I thought you were hosted with Linode? Your traceroute would suggest you are hosted by Linode and not Hostgator.

33. Jeremy –

    On one hand, you argue that you want an ‘open’ internet, that you don’t want the powerful (comcast, verizon etc), to tell you what to think and to have open and free access to information.

    On the other hand, you promote ‘hunting down and killing’ a guy that’s showing all of us that Uncle Sam has been lieing to us repeatedly. About the innocent people that America kills in Iraq and Afghanistan, about secretly hiding illegal weapons in the UK, about bombing innocent families in Yemen and paying bribes to ‘hide’ the evidence…

    which is it Jeremy? You want open honest truth and access to information? Or do you want to swallow and regurgitate the party line?

    1. Kim,
       Can I have some of that Kool-Aid you’re drinking? Must be spiked pretty good….

       Is the government telling the truth about Comcast and Verizon or are the lying there too?

       Maybe the Government has also been telling the truth but not releasing certain information for security reasons, or, maybe the are lying about those documents as well and are using it to create a crisis?

       You believe the Federal Government to be honest about Comcast and Verizon but you know for fact that they have been lying about the war and killing people.

       Which is it Kim?

34. Interesting opinion Jeremy. Good answers

35. It is a shame that Shoemoney is so uneducated about Wikileaks and is spreading lies about them.

    8 Smears and Misconceptions About WikiLeaks Spread By the Media

    http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/149369

    No troops have been endangered, even according to the Pentagon, and NATO.

    He apparently doesn’t even know what Wikileaks is, who Bradley Manning is, or who Adrian Lamo is. He also doesn’t know that the only “evidence” linking Bradley Manning to any of this has been supplied/fabricated by Adrian Lamo, a pathological liar who was involuntarily committed shortly for mental health issues shortly before producing the chat logs.

36. Very interesting and useful article,thanks for sharing.:)

Comments are closed.