I am a licensed Ham Radio operator and are controlled by the FCC. The regulations do require me to use proper identification procedures, not use vulgar language, and use courtesy while giving help those with real emergencies. I do not find that it prevents me from discussing any particular opinions with those whom I contact. Licensing is only a help in that way. We stand by with the capabilities to be of service for emergencies when the cell phones, land lines and internet are down in large scale disasters. Most are backed up with extra batteries or generators to provide that service and can reach out to connect to other lines of communication outside the disaster areas it is a genuine service to the world. And works well because of government rules.
I feel there is a real danger with the Internet Providers being the final gate keepers for the end of the line in your computer service to control who gets to have the fast lane to reach you with their message and who will have to go through the slow lane because they haven't paid a fee to the IP. The message of some will be lost because they have a slow lane and their message delayed and so will be lost unless they pay more to the IP. I think we need to have control over that issue and regulations are needed to have everyone on the same high speed rather than a corporate pay to play.
DavidMarch 3, 2015
I am a firm proponent of First Amendment rights, but I do not agree that Net Neutrality legislation and regulation will be a breach of those rights. This is based on history with phone company regulation already in place, and other regulatory provisions in the law, as with TV and radio stations through the FCC, food and drugs through the FDC, Wall Street through the SEC, etc. While I also prefer smaller government, I nevertheless see that some regulations do protect American citizens. It can be a fine line between how much is too much regulation versus not enough, but I suggest that Net Neutrality legislation need not be any more an invasion of rights than the above regulations that clearly help us. Laws also prevent us from killing each other and stealing each other's property. Is that a loss of freedom? No, it is a warranted protection. I believe an open internet, free from pay-to-play corporate stratagem, best serves the greatest number of people and actually, in the end, thereby protects free speech.
Comments | Return to Story
BobMarch 4, 2015
I am a licensed Ham Radio operator and are controlled by the FCC. The regulations do require me to use proper identification procedures, not use vulgar language, and use courtesy while giving help those with real emergencies. I do not find that it prevents me from discussing any particular opinions with those whom I contact. Licensing is only a help in that way. We stand by with the capabilities to be of service for emergencies when the cell phones, land lines and internet are down in large scale disasters. Most are backed up with extra batteries or generators to provide that service and can reach out to connect to other lines of communication outside the disaster areas it is a genuine service to the world. And works well because of government rules. I feel there is a real danger with the Internet Providers being the final gate keepers for the end of the line in your computer service to control who gets to have the fast lane to reach you with their message and who will have to go through the slow lane because they haven't paid a fee to the IP. The message of some will be lost because they have a slow lane and their message delayed and so will be lost unless they pay more to the IP. I think we need to have control over that issue and regulations are needed to have everyone on the same high speed rather than a corporate pay to play.
DavidMarch 3, 2015
I am a firm proponent of First Amendment rights, but I do not agree that Net Neutrality legislation and regulation will be a breach of those rights. This is based on history with phone company regulation already in place, and other regulatory provisions in the law, as with TV and radio stations through the FCC, food and drugs through the FDC, Wall Street through the SEC, etc. While I also prefer smaller government, I nevertheless see that some regulations do protect American citizens. It can be a fine line between how much is too much regulation versus not enough, but I suggest that Net Neutrality legislation need not be any more an invasion of rights than the above regulations that clearly help us. Laws also prevent us from killing each other and stealing each other's property. Is that a loss of freedom? No, it is a warranted protection. I believe an open internet, free from pay-to-play corporate stratagem, best serves the greatest number of people and actually, in the end, thereby protects free speech.
ADD A COMMENT