It-it-it's a series of tubes." Great analogy, Senator Ted Stevens. (/sarcasm)

I need help on this, because I'm embarrassed to say, even I don't completely understand how the internet works; it's a mystery to me at the hardware level. However, I'm pretty sure I understand it better than most people. And I certainly understand why corporations would favor a non-neutral Internet. And that's what I want to talk to you about. Why do corporations want a non-neutral Internet?

Here's the main reason it threatens all the telecoms. One network, like Verizon, has some sites they favor, for what ever reason. Because of this they have the ability to give favored websites an advantage by slowing the connections to other competing websites who are also on their network. They can also pick and choose which sites are dangerous according to company policy; digitalartsfront could be seen as dangerous under their terms... who knows. Also, they can slow the speed of users who subscribe to a competing telecom who are trying to access something on their network.

On television I've heard people argue that a non-neutral network is a safer one, because that lets the telecoms protect you against child pornography and torrent sites. <- Those are two arguments they actually use. Logically, do you really think that moralistic issues are what drive big corporations? Or is there a small chance it might be more related to money and a competitive edge?

And this is my favorite part about the whole thing, because they know people (Americans) are stupid. They call non-net neutrality different things to confuse voters.
Pro Internet Freedom sounds a lot like it would be for a free, neutral, and better internet. Because everyone (Americans) love that word freedom, even if it doesn't actually mean freedom.
The U.S. bill Internet Freedom Act gives corporations the freedom to do what they want, therefore allowing them to compete they way they want. That's f#$king confusing. And, it's even more confusing when you have people who say Internet Freedom when referring to Internet Neutrality. [Link to blog.heritage.org] How are the slow (American) voters suppose to understand this issue, which was already complicated to begin with.

This U.S. American problem effects almost all sites in the world, because you'll have your bandwidth limited to people who live in the US, because you're competing with similar U.S. sites. That sucks. All the sites I like to visit, except for Google, aren't hosted in the U.S. If I suddenly can't access digitalartsfront because of this issue I'll consider moving to another country.

For more clarification, here's ex-Senator Ted Stevens, who's trying to trick Americans in this clip. Unfortunately, people still fall for these same retarded arguments.

---

---