Moby and Michael Stipe? That's the best he could get to stand up and endorse the bill. I'd have thought it would be easy to get endorsements from celebrities who are actually popular and who people don't generally hate.

Dave

Do you even read past the titles before forming a clever quip? This is a serious issue about your rights to be the elitist pig and omnipotent character that you are? What are you going to do when the brakes are put on you for money's sake? There is no left, right or popularity contest here. This is a simple matter of free speech, although I would from time to time like to charge you for the priveledge.

You seem to have missed the point of my 'clever quip'. Given the seriousness of the issue, why was there so little support and so little concern? That's the point.

We've been over this issue before, of course. Network Neutrality is largely a fabricated bugaboo designed to get internet users up in arms against the evil big telecom corporations to spread the anti-corporate, statist agenda of MoveOn.org which backs the site which you reference early in the article.

It comes down to whether you think the government should be involved in every aspect of the internet, regulating business practices and enforcing their idea of 'fairness', which may change depending on the administration and the whims of bureaucrats. In fact, 'Network Neutrality' is a brilliant Orwellian misnaming of the idea because it's more like the exact opposite. It's Network Dictatorship of the state, and I just don't see how that can be a good thing.

Dave

You should try Wikipedia sometime Dave.

"Neutrality as law

Net neutrality has been instantiated into law in many countries, including the United Kingdom, South Korea, and Japan.

In the United States, there are no laws that instantiate net neutrality as a telecommunications standard. Many advocates, however, have spoken loudly on its behalf. This, combined with worries over favoritism by telecoms, prompted Congress to begin hearings on the subject.

On February 7, 2006, Congress called upon prominent members of the technology industry to testify on behalf of the standard, including Vinton Cerf, the inventor of TCP/IP, and current Vice President and "Chief Internet Evangelist" at Google. In his testimony, he said, "allowing broadband carriers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success."

The petition and movement is to stop the telco giants from getting the Congress to actually pass a law, one that guts the theory of Network Neutrality. There is no law at this point, and that is actually what HR 5273 hopes to protect. Do you really not understand this issue?

I've visited the Wikipedia site a number of times, Paul. It's fairly informative. It also gives BOTH sides of the argument. You ought to go back there and read the other side that MoveOn.org isn't hand-feeding you.

I'm all for leaving things the way they are. Right now carriers can manage their networks as they see fit with minimal government interference - essentially free trade for the net. The law you're supporting would put an end to that. Do you really not understand this issue?

Dave

Dave, I agree with you. Let's not legislate a fix to a problem that doesn't exist. And this isn't the "evil corporations" versus the helpless common man. Do people realize that Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Amazon to name just a few are strongly backing net neutrality.

The "sky is falling" cries need to stop if there is ever going to be a meaningful debate on this issue.

Reed,
Don't comment on the comment if you won't read the article.

"Actually what is at stake is a desire for no change at all in Net Neutrality, better off left alone so to speak. Senators Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), and Byron L. Dorgan (North Dakota), are expected to introduce legislation at the Senate level in support of Net Neutrality.

It is the Telco Giants, who are lobbying for legislation, the only reason that Markey has offered a resolution is because someone now has to answer AT&T's version now being circulated by fat cat lobbyists. No, not Henny Penny, more like you two admire "the kings new clothes"

I've never gone wrong being suspicious of people who want to fix thing that aren't noticably broken.

Someone is ALWAYS preventing the free flow of information on every level...not just the internet level. So what good would it do to just nitpick at a greater issue?

It is not in the Telcos best interest to prevent the internet from doing it's job. The internet is already tolled because you and I have to pay to get on it. There is no neutrality when picking a service provider...you have to pick at least ONE to surf the internet with. If you wanted to be really network neutral, you could go to the public library. They're already mandated to provide accurate information from as many sources as possible. However, if you don't use them, you lose them.

I clicked on the hyperlink to your article but got another one instead. I had to click on your name listed on the bottom of the page to get to this interview. I wouldn't call it an interview because you got cut off and neither stipe or moby were asked questions. They just made statements...which isn't the same.

I think your attitude towards Dave's comment is assinine and verges onto something personal.

Thank you Mrs. Nalle.

But seriously, I do not know Dave, therefore it would be quite improbable to be "personal". I totally disagree with him on what I see as an ostrich approach to this issue, but he is entitled, and that is what makes this interesting, opposing views. I have in fact agreed with Dave on other subjects, just not this one.