Net Neutrality - losing our access?

I was Googling some network questions and found this article about Network Neutrality. Actually, the crazy title of the article caught my eye:

Net Neutrality = Large Telcom companies out to **** the common people and their crappy little websites – working with prostituting politicians selling out the rights of the citizen they represent so that can put money in their pockets to stay in office.

http://pusz4frog.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/net-neutrality-large-telcom-companies-out-to-****-the-common-people-and-their-crappy-little-websites-%e2%80%93-working-with-prostituting-politicians-selling-out-the-rights-of-the-citizen-they-repre/

I didn't realize that our right to an equal Internet experience was in jeopardy. I can't believe the stupid Republicans held up the Net Neutrality act.

Yeah, it is clear that the Telco's are paying off the Republican because they will sell there souls cheep. Actually, I think all politicians will sell their souls, maybe not cheep but sell they will.

I hope the FCC will rule that broadband is a telecom service subject to common carrier rules will treat all traffic equally.

Damn Telco's, crappy wireless reception, over-priced services and now they want to rule the Internet and rip us all off. Like my cell phone bill isn't enough of a rip off!!

This is really the first time I have heard of this net neutrality issue.

How big an issue is Net Neutrality for us, the average citizen?

If the Telco's have their way, if I set-up a blog or small website then I would have to pay a lot of money to get the same traffic speed that I would today?

Why would anyone support the idea of letting these Telco's run the Internet and rip us off?

 

@OP: Net neutrality is a big deal, but it's already a sham, since you have to pay for access. So naturally you already have better connection to sites owned by your provider.

@Laura: Blogs may be opinion, but no less than Fox, or CBS, or CNN. And they aren't paid for by those big telcom industries like Fox, CBS, and CNN. So saying that blogs aren't news, or have no facts is simply not right. Especially when you have actual news channels that fail to do any research.

 

I was not referencing the blog as a statement of fact. I actually was referencing it for the opinion it stated.

The link seems to have a bad word in it, so MG edited.

Below is a tinylink they had for the page:

http://tinyurl.com/29vrn76

 

I agree with LauraR 100%. There is no valid comparison there.

 

I'm sorry, but Laura's description is exactly what those are. Fox gives us: X is the news, this is why you should be interested.

Blogs give us: X is the subject, this is why I'm interested.

The real difference is that the bloggers actually care about what they're reporting on, unlike news anchors who simply don't care, and only do it because they get paid. We as a nation and as human beings have somehow reached a point where we expect everything to be completely emotionally divorced, but that we also want people to care and feel. It's a completely wrong and stupid attitude. I'd rather have two sides passionate about their points of view, than one neutral, scrubbed point of view from someone who doesn't care at all.

So I'll count blogs as news, and fact check them, just as I do with so called news organizations.

But we're sliding off topic.

 

That is a blanket statement, and as such cannot be taken seriously. You cannot speak to the emotions, intent, or professional mores of all news anchors, journalists, etc. I worked for a time as a paid journalist - and your statement does not describe me. For that matter, you also cannot speak to the intent of all the bloggers out there . . .

The difference between a paid journalist and a private blogger? There are standards and rules in place that at least try to control the quality of information that emanates from a "News" agency in the case of the professional reporter/journalist/anchor, etc. Not to say it always works, but at least such an apparatus is in place. In the case of the blogger there is no such check or balance.

But this is kinda beside the point. You made a more pertinent point below:

Don't accept as fact everything you hear, no matter what the source. If something sounds hinky, go with your gut and verify whatever it is. Especially beware of accepting as true something just because it happens to be what you want to hear or what you want to be true. No one should be a parrot . . .

All said and done, I'll still give an established news agency a bit more trust then a random, unknown blogger