Cloudeight Poll: Are You For or Against Net Neutrality?

By | November 16, 2014

Net neutrality has been in the news lately and has stirred up a big debate in Washington. Read this pro net neutrality article and this anti net neutrality article, if your interested in learning more or see why some favor and some oppose net neutrality.

Those who are in favor  of net neutrality believe that it is necessary  to keep the Internet open and equal for everyone. Without net neutrality the Internet would have fast lanes which only companies who could afford to pay to be on these fast lanes could enjoy. Those companies and sites which could not afford to pay for the privilege  would be relegated to annoying slow lanes which would hinder the Web sites’ ability to serve its audience, sell goods and services and/or gain new customers and visitors. Additionally, ISPs could completely block access to websites unwilling to pay the toll for the fast lanes.

Those who think net neutrality is bad for the Internet be that private companies should be free from regulation and each ISP should be able to conduct business any way they see fit. Those who are anti net neutrality feel that competition should drive force of the Internet and that competition alone will protect customers and prevent ISPs from blocking Web sites who can’t afford to pay to be on one of the fast lanes.

Let us know how you feel by voting in our Net Neutrality Poll!

[polldaddy poll=7814080]

 

 

13 thoughts on “Cloudeight Poll: Are You For or Against Net Neutrality?

  1. Danny Stewart

    Evidently most people do not understand this issue, ANYTIME the government gets involved in ANYTHING, they mess it up, royally.

    Reply
    1. Graycrab

      I believe that you are wrong! Net neutrality all the way, Danny. Government does many things very well.

      Reply
  2. Jeff

    If ISPs and companies like Comcast are in charge, they will charge us even more. Everyone should have access to the same internet at a low price for the same level of service. The government will not screw it up because the government already is in charge of it and it works quite well.

    Reply
  3. Ken Roberts

    It is a mixed bag but it is not going to be long before you will experience the death of the internet as we all have known it . I must say the Government does many things so terrible wrong it is hard to trust them with any kind of regulation . Post office , health care even the DOJ has been messed up . So many that want to be coddled by the government will lose more freedom in the long run . Sometimes it is better to do nothing . If we could expect to have a free and fast internet with controls that would be wonderful but I hold very little hope in my government doing that . I still am on the fence on this one , why ? because I have seen what government can become in the last 6 years .

    Reply
    1. Jeff

      Considering a short six years ago we were in the verge of a full world wide depression and collapse of the economy, the stock market is doing quite well. While the economy has not improved for everyone yet, indications say that things will be better as time goes on. Insurance companies are not in charge of your health care any longer. They pay claims instead of fighting to make them pay. Before Obama Care you had a cap on coverage. Now you can get coverage for existing conditions and almost limitless payment of your healthcare bills. Before you had to go bankrupt to get out of multi-million dollar bills from hospitals and clinics. Things have turned around but you might be looking on the cup as being half empty instead of half full.

      Reply
  4. Allan Ackerman

    I think the question is, are you willing to block bad things the occur on the net, and if so who should make that desicion

    Reply
    1. infoave Post author

      You need to read those two articles to learn what Net Neutrality is and what it isn’t. It has nothing to do with blocking bad things on the nest unless you consider site that are not run by billion-dollar companies “bad things”.
      ..

      Reply
  5. Muriel.S

    Absolutely, without a doubt in my mind, the internet should remain neutral and free access to it should prevail.
    I simply cannot understand the thinking of some comments here. I would feel much better if they came from a place of knowledge and awareness of the facts, instead of uninformed off the wall conjecture. This is a REALLY SERIOUS issue not to be taken likely.

    Reply
  6. Ken Roberts

    It is serious and that is why I am still reading and yes I believe the people should have access but I do not trust government now because of all the lying in this administration . you can keep your doctor period , you can keep your policy if you like it period we are to stupid to make life decisions . and all the other things from fast and furious and Benghazi just makes me very leery of it . But who do you trust ?

    Reply
    1. Muriel.S

      Who do I trust? Certainly not corporations. Have you tried to “talk” to one of them lately? Evenif only during the normal course of business? At least we have an avenue to action with the government, and can get “some” recognition if we organize to do it. With corporations all you get is a voice recorded message or a scripted conversation with someone who will lose their job if they don’t say what they’re told to say. The point is not who do you trust, but who do you want to turn over “absolute” control of your life to.
      We still have the power of a vote to change the our government leaders, and “people” advocates to force those doors open when we need to. Absolute NO voice when addressing a “corporate” power, except our checkbooks, provided you have a few million dollars to spare.

      Reply
  7. JoninOz

    As with thousands of other inventions for the benefit of EVERYONE equally, governments and corporations take a hold of of the product and twist and turn it to suit themselves.

    The driving force behind this is the discovery of the true God named Money.

    To some of the commentators herein, governments can not be trusted, proof, they are PUBLIC SERVANTS, and more often in recent times they make decisions which go against the ‘will of the people’, and to top it off, generally, most of the members lack the competency to perform their task to benefit those who elected them.

    The truth is in The Peter Rule.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle

    The Peter Principle is a concept in management theory in which the selection of a candidate for a position is based on the candidate’s performance in his or her current role rather than on abilities relevant to the intended role. Thus, employees only stop being promoted once they can no longer perform effectively, and “managers rise to the level of their incompetence.”

    The principle is named after Laurence J. Peter who co-authored with Raymond Hull the humorous 1969 book The Peter Principle: Why Things Always Go Wrong.

    Reply
  8. Diane

    Here I sit in Rural America with an internet ‘service’ I pay an arm & a leg for to keep a Head Person in his style!! All I want is a good internet service across the Air Waves which a while back were FREE….a senior on a fixed Income that wants to enjoy the services . I CAN’T stream movies, I DON’T have unlimited Internet Services; people around here can’t afford 80.00 per month. I also pay for Cable TV which would go up each and every year until the point we couldn’t do it anymore……dropping back to the ‘basics’. At the end of the day we just wanted to relax and enjoy some good TV shows; we gave it up because of the money greed.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *