« Repeal losing appeal | Main | Congrats to Annie Penn »
Jun 02, 2014
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The comments to this entry are closed.
Recent Comments
- Kim on 42 and done: Mike Krzyzewski’s depressing final act
- Billy Jones on Another list we don't want to be on
- Billy Jones on A list we don't want to be on
- Account Deleted on A list we don't want to be on
- Billy Jones on AI, robotics, and jobs in the N&R
- liv on Keep the damn tourney in Greensboro
- Ed Cone on Keep the damn tourney in Greensboro
- Ed Cone on Keep the damn tourney in Greensboro
- Jonathan Jones on Keep the damn tourney in Greensboro
- Billy Jones on Keep the damn tourney in Greensboro
Categories
- Amendment 1 (124)
- Broken Pipe (48)
- Business & Economy (1)
- Chasing Liddy (79)
- ConvergeSouth (176)
- DarkTimes (129)
- development (9)
- econ dev (14)
- Elm and Cornwallis (15)
- Fracking NC (86)
- Free the food trucks (34)
- GC GOP OMG (19)
- GoogleFi (96)
- Hagan interview (4)
- Hagan vs. Koch (18)
- Hotel bond fun! (74)
- Jonesborough (2)
- Library filters (33)
- Marshall and Burr (7)
- Marymandering (14)
- N&R (11)
- N&R columns (142)
- Online campaigns (7)
- Performance Art (36)
- protest petitions (37)
- Save the Haw River Park (46)
- SOPA/PIPA (19)
- Suing over satire (9)
- Trash Talk (71)
- Truth & Reconciliation (97)
- TWC: Tiers of a Clown (22)
- Wray fray (100)
Great, now I'm going to worry about Shrek attacks.
Posted by: Andrew Brod | Jun 02, 2014 at 05:12 PM
Know any internet trolls?
Posted by: Stephen | Jun 03, 2014 at 04:29 PM
While we didn't need net neutrality regulations for the simple reason that it was already neutral, we do not need to its opposite either.
Leave the net alone.
Posted by: NitWitCharmer | Jun 04, 2014 at 07:15 AM
In a hotel recently, I encountered a version of net non-neutrality. The in-room wifi was free, but I could pay a fee to get faster access.
Posted by: Andrew Brod | Jun 04, 2014 at 09:08 AM
Nitwit, if the carriers plan to break net neutrality -- if they will not "leave the net alone" -- what options other than regulation do you see?
Posted by: Ed Cone | Jun 04, 2014 at 09:15 AM
"Gov. McCrory signs bill into law clearing the way for fracking in North Carolina"
Posted by: hartzman | Jun 04, 2014 at 12:28 PM
Get ready for complaining about Ed not "covering" that story on his blog.
Posted by: Andrew Brod | Jun 04, 2014 at 02:24 PM
We're probably due for a fracking NC update here, given recent developments, although as an extremely part-time blogger I think there's more value in being early to a story (first post in this category was in 2008) than saying "I continue to think this now-mainstream story is bad news."
But this thread is about the potential death of net neutrality, so let's stick to that here. Thanks.
Posted by: Ed Cone | Jun 04, 2014 at 02:45 PM
It's not the carriers doing it, it's the FCC.
Net neutrality previously went nowhere because it was a solution to a problem that did not exist.
In steps to FCC to rectify that. Now the problem net neutrality was intended to solve exists... due to the FCC.
Step out. Leave the net alone.
Posted by: NitWitCharmer | Jun 04, 2014 at 02:52 PM
So your idea of leaving the net alone includes allowing cable companies to throttle services per the Netflix example shown in the clip?
Posted by: Ed Cone | Jun 04, 2014 at 03:01 PM
This is the result of an FCC rule change, no?
Posted by: NitWitCharmer | Jun 05, 2014 at 12:05 AM
A change forced upon the FCC by the court. The call now is to figure out a way to restore the status quo ante (and ultimately to enshrine neutrality in law).
Posted by: Ed Cone | Jun 05, 2014 at 09:16 AM
So you admit that the corporations are not just "break(ing) net neutrality", that they were not doing so during the net neutrality debate, and have only now been allowed to do so?...By the court.
I missed the court bit...
I'll read deeper on that.
Posted by: NitWitCharmer | Jun 05, 2014 at 10:48 AM
The rules have changed, and now carriers can throttle.
The issue at hand is finding a way to restore the previous restriction on non-neutral carriage.
Posted by: Ed Cone | Jun 05, 2014 at 11:08 AM
I suppose my point is that there was a push for net neutrality when the FCC rules were in place. Why?
Posted by: NitWitCharmer | Jun 06, 2014 at 08:45 AM
Because the legal and regulatory structure supporting net neutrality was somewhat flimsy and in need of a firmer footing, putting the net as we've known it at substantial risk.
As is now clear to all.
Posted by: Ed Cone | Jun 06, 2014 at 09:00 AM
Editor's note: Comment redacted. George, you've been asked in this thread to stay on topic. Please do so. Thanks.
Posted by: hartzman | Jun 06, 2014 at 11:23 AM