|
Today's semi-official : IDGI Thread. | by klar_at_work | 2006-09-08 00:15:07 |
|
IDGI either | by snate | 2006-09-08 00:20:03 |
|
That's because it's a bad idea with a good name. | by magixtechnica | 2006-09-08 00:31:24 |
|
What's the bad idea? | by snate | 2006-09-08 00:35:16 |
|
So what you are saying is that you WANT | by hieraco | 2006-09-08 01:00:55 |
|
No I don't want that. I thought Net Neutrality | by snate | 2006-09-08 01:03:54 |
|
That was what I thought it was about, too. (n/t) | by ts003 | 2006-09-08 01:05:19 |
|
According to wikipedia: | by ts003 | 2006-09-08 01:13:04 |
|
According to save the internet: | by ts003 | 2006-09-08 01:18:44 |
|
Put it this way, I want net neutrality, but the | by magixtechnica | 2006-09-08 01:24:33 |
|
OK so Net Neutrality, good, what is currently goin | by snate | 2006-09-08 01:26:25 |
| As far as I got it... |
by Arancaytar |
2006-09-08 02:23:47 |
The law that they are currently trying to pass is not a law *against* net neutrality, but does not have an adequate protection for it either (although it is "supposed" to be for net neutrality), so StI wishes it to be edited further before being passed.
This would imply that there is currently no protection of net neutrality at all, which sounds strange, but makes sense when you consider that some ISPs have already blocked email or content in violation of this. The outrage that resulted never turned into a lawsuit, which would imply that ISPs can currently do anything they want.
But I'm as confused about it as you, so I'm really not sure. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
What I think is going on, is that | by magixtechnica | 2006-09-08 02:37:43 |
