TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:What some don't understand is once government gets their hands into something, even if it is initially beneficial, they normally don't stop there. Another thing done don't understand is that bills and rules are given favorable sounding names but actually do the opposite or much more than what the name implies.

What many understand and is concerned about is that "net neutrality" is just the beginning of much more to come. It's probably hidden in those three hundred pages. Some are easily lulled into thinking those in government are there to look out for us.

By the way, the 1st Amendment is to keep the government from suppressing or limiting free speech. It has nothing to do with private companies throttling internet bandwidth.

You are correct, keeping the government from suppressing or limiting free speech is exactly what the 1st Amendment is for. What you are missing is that it also gives the government the ability to ensure the right to free speech. That is why I see the similarity between the 1st Amendment and the concept of net neutrality. Throttling internet bandwidth would effectively suppress and limit access to certain websites. ISPs could limit our access to this very forum if they desired. While not exactly a 1st Amendment issue, it is extremely similar in concept.

I'm very curious about what is in those 300 pages, but those concerns should be separate of Net Neutrality itself.

Net Neutrality is an example of a government action that is beneficial. It's essentially the 1st Amendment for the internet. It seems like the people who are outright against net neutrality don't understand that. All it does is keep the internet as it is today, instead of it becoming like cable tv with only certain websites available to certain Internet Service Providers. It is exactly the opposite of the situation in China.

Now, what all is in those 300 pages is cause for at least some concern, but net neutrality itself should not be an issue.