×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Where the Candidates Stand On Net Neutrality

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the choosing-sides dept.

The Internet 420

nmpost writes "Net neutrality is one of the biggest issues with regard to the internet today. At the heart of the issues is how much control ISPs will be allowed to have over their networks. Each candidate has come out with a strong position on the matter, and whoever wins will have a drastic effect on the future of the internet. Barack Obama has been a proponent of net neutrality. Under his watch, the FCC has implemented net neutrality rules. These restrictions did not apply to wireless networks, though; a gaping loophole that will be problematic in the future, as mobile internet is exploding in popularity. Until it is addressed, Obama can only be given a barely passing grade with regard to net neutrality. Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has come down on the other side of the issue. The former Massachusetts governor strongly opposes net neutrality. According to Politico, Romney believes net neutrality will restrict ISPs, and that they alone should govern their networks. The governor has stated that he wants as little regulation of the internet as possible."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

420 comments

NAACP (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41050493)

What's NAACP stand for? Now Apes Are Called People.

NO NET NEUTRALITY (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41050507)

Why in the fuck would I wan some1 who is for the goverment takeoff of the internet?

Re:NAACP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41050523)

Suck the cheese from the bottom of my nutsack you racist motherfucking hick.

Re:NAACP (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41050681)

Suck the cheese from the bottom of my nutsack you racist motherfucking hick.

So tell us then which black-governed, majority-black-population in Africa would you like to live in then?

Hope you can make friends with the local warlords.

Except Abortions (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41050501)

No abortions on the Internet.

Which is bad, because the trolls keep reproducing, and we can't even use contraceptives on them.

Do the candidates know what Net Neutrality means? (5, Insightful)

The Shootist (324679) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050505)

I have seen no evidence that any of them do. Republican or demonrat, it makes no difference.

Re:Do the candidates know what Net Neutrality mean (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41050585)

And those that do lie about what it means to push their agenda (eg, painting NN as a government takeover or new fairness doctrine)

Re:Do the candidates know what Net Neutrality mean (4, Insightful)

guises (2423402) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050653)

Republican or demonrat, it makes no difference.

Are you saying that they are both equally ignorant? Or that the choice between Romney and Obama would have no impact on this issue?

I'm not sure about the first point, neither one of them has demonstrated Ted Stevens-style ignorance, but the second point is definitely wrong: even if they don't know the full impact of the promises that they make, those promises still influence policy. Legislation will result from this, on one side or the other, if only to keep up appearances of making good with campaign promises.

Re:Do the candidates know what Net Neutrality mean (0)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050831)

...Legislation will result from this...

Regardless of who wins, the legislation will be written by the service providers in the same manner that copyright law is now composed by the entertainment industry and Wall Street regulation comes from the financial industry. The choice between Romney and Obama is a false one.

Re:Do the candidates know what Net Neutrality mean (4, Insightful)

guises (2423402) | about a year and a half ago | (#41051171)

Nonsense. Even if you take a maximally cynical position that each candidate is completely purchased and by each company and each industry to an equal extent (false), legislation written by those companies must acknowledge campaign promises to at least some degree. So net neutrality legislation written by the ISPs for Obama would be more neutral than net neutrality legislation written by the ISPs for Romney.

I will certainly acknowledge that special interests have far more influence than they should, and even more in the wake of Citizens United, but I don't understand this nihilistic approach to politics. If you really believe that election results are completely inconsequential, why are you here commenting on them?

Re:Do the candidates know what Net Neutrality mean (4, Insightful)

flaming error (1041742) | about a year and a half ago | (#41051203)

"If you really believe that election results are completely inconsequential, why are you here commenting on them?"

What else is he supposed to do? Vote?

Re:Do the candidates know what Net Neutrality mean (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050809)

I have seen no evidence that any of them do. Republican or demonrat, it makes no difference.

Heck, plenty of slashdotters can't agree on what Net Neutrality means.

Tyrone the net neutrality nigger speaks: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41051053)

Specifically, dey network neutrality be preventin' da shackles of res-trict-ions on da shit dey see, websites, komputahs, 'n otha sheeit dat dey be usin, and how dey gear talk. Ownas can't interfere with da shit dey see, what dey do, how dey do, and komputahs of dey choice and bein' open to all niggaz.

-- Tyrone

Just turned in a term paper on Net Neutrality. (5, Informative)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about a year and a half ago | (#41051181)

Do the candidates know what Net Neutrality means?
I have seen no evidence that any of them do.

I just turned in a term paper on Network Neutrality issues and regulatory approaches to them.

One thing I discovered was that Obama (or at least his relevant policy wonk and/or speechwriter) was quite aware of the issues and was coming down strongly on the side of regulating to prevent entertainment/ISP conglomerate oligopolists from using their control of the pipes to strangle their content and services competition and shaft their customers.

Which may not be the right approach. But they did seem to be QUITE up on things.

Relevant Obama quote, from a June 8 2006 podcast:

The topic today is net neutrality. The Internet today is an open platform where the demand for websites and services dictates success. You've got barriers to entry that are low and equal for all comers ... I can say what I want without censorship. I don't have to pay a special charge. But the big telephone and cable companies want to change the Internet as we know it. They say they want to create high-speed lanes on the Internet and strike exclusive contractual arrangements with Internet content-providers for access to those high-speed lanes. Those of us who can't pony up the cash for these high-speed connections will be relegated to the slow lanes. So here's my view. We can't have a situation in which the corporate duopoly dictates the future of the Internet and that's why I'm supporting what is called net neutrality.

Re:Do the candidates know what Net Neutrality mean (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#41051199)

Did you vote for anyone in the primaries that DID know what net neutrality meant?

Ron Paul (3, Interesting)

drwho (4190) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050531)

Where does he rank? Or he even worth mentioning?

Re:Ron Paul (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41050589)

He's anti, though he claims to be "pro freedom." In actuality all that means is that he opposes regulation.

Which is the only logical stance (-1, Flamebait)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050747)

He's anti, though he claims to be "pro freedom."

"though"?

If you are pro-freedom, you are against policies that take away your rights. Regulations on ISP's take away rights.

It's pretty simple, it's hard to understand how the same people that hate the patriot act and SOPA can get on the wrong side of this for Net Neutrality.

If you like more regulation, if you support Net Neutrality, it is the gate by which SOPA will become a reality - by some other name perhaps, but the end result is the same.

You seriously cannot see how Net Neutrality is the enforcement arm for SOPA?

Re:Which is the only logical stance (5, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050801)

Regulations on ISP's take away rights.

And granting them monopolies takes away our rights

So, the solution is obvious. Net neutrality would be a given in a truly competitive business environment.

Only regulations create monopolies (-1, Troll)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050869)

And granting them monopolies takes away our rights

That is bullshit on ten thousand levels.

With any company, you are free not to use their services.

Well that us UNLESS regulations say that company has no competition, which is why usually you have but one choice for cable internet...

If companies are free to compete, you have a lot of choices for ISPs.

Meanwhile, if you allow network neutrality to pass say goodbye to choice of ISPs mattering, because all ISPs will have the same regulations regarding blocking addresses, logging IP access, so on and so forth.

Net neutrality would be a given in a truly competitive business environment.

Although I don't think you meant to say that you are exactly correct. So instead of fighting FOR limitations on the few ISP's you can choose, how about fighting for the right to have more ISPs as competition?

Re:Only regulations create monopolies (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050933)

With any company, you are free not to use their services. Well that us UNLESS regulations say that company has no competition, which is why usually you have but one choice for cable internet...

You are still free to not use their services... until the government requires you to have internet access.

Net neutrality would be a given in a truly competitive business environment.

Although I don't think you meant to say that you are exactly correct. So instead of fighting FOR limitations on the few ISP's you can choose, how about fighting for the right to have more ISPs as competition?

That should be the preferred option, but that's a local govt solution, and it's hard to get enough geeks locally to convince city councils to stop providing monopolies.

Re:Only regulations create monopolies (1, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#41051003)

You are still free to not use their services... until the government requires you to have internet access.

A requirement, regulation or law which I would also oppose.

That should be the preferred option, but that's a local govt solution

Now you are catching on to why it's so important to move things away from the federal level.

Yes fighting local government is hard, damn hard. But at least it's possible. With federal matters you have too many layers of indirection to hope to effect real change.

Re:Only regulations create monopolies (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41051015)

Granting them monopolies takes away our right to choose the best service. It should not be allowed. And the process of granting those monopolies is riddled with corruption. What the feds should do is to overrule all local legislation that prohibits the municipalities and states or other coops from providing their own services. What we have now is the communication industry making the rules. Most likely it will stay that way until you vote the party (there is only one) out.

The way it changes is, fight from below (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#41051083)

What the feds should do is to overrule all local legislation that prohibits the municipalities and states or other coops from providing their own services.

I disagree with that as being what should happen - primarily because as you say, it will not happen.

The only way to fight these local municipalities is, well, locally. We need to get more technologically sophisticated people involved in government. Even if only attending and commenting in local council meetings, just a few technologically knowledgeable people regularly overseeing government could make a huge difference. And I think it's the only way to overthrow corrupt rules and politicians, by shedding light on them.

Re:Which is the only logical stance (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050877)

Yeah, about that, could you please name any private toll road that restricts (or is allowed to restrict) passage to its competitors trucks (other civil construction/transportation contractors)?

Two can play (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050981)

Can you name ANY ISP that blocks traffic from any competitors domains as you claim?

No? They why the need for a new law? Why the need to provide controls that allows the government to control whatever traffic can come into a road?

What you seek will have the exact opposite effect you desire.

Re:Which is the only logical stance (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41051075)

That actually was an issue with the railroads in the early days. It was quite the scandal.

Re:Which is the only logical stance (1, Informative)

fm6 (162816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050883)

Paul is "pro-freedom" only when it's consistent with his prejudices. For example, he supports "antisodomy" laws. Consider that next time you're doing something kinky.

Are you sure? (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050991)

Where and when did Ron Paul support anti-sodomy laws?

Saying you are against something, does not mean you support laws against it. Just that you are against the thing.

Re:Which is the only logical stance (0)

Vaphell (1489021) | about a year and a half ago | (#41051129)

what a load of bullshit.
The same argument could be made at the federal level - if you think that the govt formally has a power to pass patriot act or any other law of the fucking bullshit kind then by your logic you are a supporter of these laws.

He supports the people's right to create laws at the state level, be it right or wrong. Are you against the states rights when they are on the right side of history too (you know, progressive states introducing gay marriages and marijuana legalization and shit) or maybe you are just a fucking hypocrite who just judges legitimacy of the law by what he feels is good or bad?

Now we can argue if his interpretation of the legal framework is proper or not or what scope should the laws be, but your claim that he is pro-antisodomy is a fat lie.

Re:Which is the only logical stance (5, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year and a half ago | (#41051011)

You seriously cannot see how Net Neutrality is the enforcement arm for SOPA?

I sure as hell can't.
Net Neutrality means that your ISP cannot discriminate based on content, services, hardware, applications, etc etc etc.
Further, they cannot interfere with your connection because of any of the aforementioned reasons.

SOPA [wikipedia.org] has nothing to do with that.
If you'd care to explain how a law/regulation that prevents discrimination = the copyright police, I'm all ears.

Re:Which is the only logical stance (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41051097)

You seriously cannot see that one man's rights infringe upon another's?

In order to protect the rights of any group at all, the rights of another group must be limited. That is how freedom works. We call such limitations "regulation," and without them we get anarchy instead of freedom.

Choosing the right target and level of regulation is not easy, but it is the primary task of anyone who claims to be "pro freedom."

Re:Ron Paul (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41050617)

He's the ONLY candidate worth mentioning. Obama and Romney are the same agenda with nothing but little wedge issues that keep people polarized to their candidate of choice. Since it's unlikely he will get the nomination, Former Governor Gary Johnson is right there with his views on 99.9% of things. IMO, unless you vote Libertarian, it doesn't matter whether you vote Democrat or Republican. Both are big government and anti-liberty.

Re:Ron Paul (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41050875)

They're not allowed to mention Ron Paul.

At the extreme right, where he's always been. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41050999)

Right at the bottom.

Contrary to the Libertarian Propaganda machine, Ron Paul is on the extreme right, more so any any other candidate.

His stance on the Iraq war is reflective on his isolationist view point.

His stance on net deregulation is reflective of his Pro-Corporate viewpoint.

Any survey that shows Ron Paul to be anything other than an extreme conservative is completely misleading, and deliberately so. And if you think he's anything other than an extremest, you need to re-read his platform and viewpoints.

Mitt Romney has come down.... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41050533)

Yeh, but if you wait a week, Romney will endorse Net Neutrality as essential to a free and open internet marketplace. Then if you point out his flip-flop he'll scream 'you're trying to divide us with your hate speech!'.

Seriously Republicans, I know the pickings were slim, but couldn't you have done better than Romney?

Re:Mitt Romney has come down.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41050553)

I concur. Paul Ryan should have gotten the POTUS nomination.

Re:Mitt Romney has come down.... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41050651)

Say what you will about Ryan, but he sure as fuck isn't afraid to stand by his idiotic opinions.

Re:Mitt Romney has come down.... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41050767)

Why would he be afraid? He is an agent for the wealthiest people on the planet. People like Paul Ryan are paid to steal the wealth of the middle class and give that wealth to their masters. Paul Ryan approaches this task with sincerity which fools some people into thinking he is a sincere, decent human being. That is far from the truth. If you are a member of the middle class, he is sincerely going to fuck you over, again and again, until you have nothing left to take, that is all.

Re:Mitt Romney has come down.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41050729)

Paul Ryan, the great axeman of the middle class. Uh, fuck no.

Other than Ron Paul, all the Republican candidates are scumbag politicians whose only intent is personal enrichment and the destruction of America.

Re:Mitt Romney has come down.... (4, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050813)

This is what happens when you sell your soul to the crazy extremists. The Republicans embraced and encouraged the deluded fringes of society by spreading lies about "government death panels" and what not. It got them a lot of votes in 2010. But it was a Faustian bargain. The crazies have taken over the party from within, and serious candidates like Gary Johnson and Jon Huntsman don't stand a chance. Instead, we get the likes of Gingrich and Trump and Santorum.

I'm reminded of a point in the 2008 campaigns. McCain was giving a speech, and mentioned Obama. The crowd went wild, screaming things like "Terrorist!" and "Kill Him!". McCain winced, having clearly heard and been bothered by the remarks. But did he speak up? Did he change his campaign, and drop the "terrorist sympathizer" rhetoric? No. In my mind, that marked the death of the GOP. What's left is akin to Old Yeller. Dangerous, violent, and needs to be put down for everyone's sake (figuratively -- we're talking about the party, not the people in it). Let the sane members form a new party. They're being forced out of office by teabagger primaries anyway, and I'm sure the Blue Dog Democrats would join them.

Re:Mitt Romney has come down.... (5, Interesting)

englishknnigits (1568303) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050963)

I hate to defend McCain but:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llef8ZRTWQo [youtube.com]
He did actually speak up. Could he have said more and altered tone? Sure, but he wasn't silent about it.
As a side note, you should really stop trying to label entire groups of people based on douche bag members of that group. Every group has people that the group itself should be ashamed of but that hardly justifies tar and feathering the entire group. That's called applying stereotypes. Two examples of applying stereotypes that you may be familiar with are racism and sexism.

Re:Mitt Romney has come down.... (2, Informative)

ATMAvatar (648864) | about a year and a half ago | (#41051131)

The Republicans would get less flak for the fringe elements of their side if the reins weren't handed over to them.

Increasingly, you see the Republican party as a whole kowtowing to its fringe elements rather than taking the more sensible, moderate road. It has been this way for years, most notably since Obama first started campaigning, but it has been especially bad since the 2010 elections.

I keep waiting for a responsible adult to stand up and tell the Tea Party fanatics to calm down.

Re:Mitt Romney has come down.... (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about a year and a half ago | (#41051167)

Wow, it's actually quite frightning that people THAT ignorant and uninformed are voting in federal elections.

Re:Mitt Romney has come down.... (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050899)

...couldn't you have done better than Romney?

No, they're tossing the election. Neither side wants a super majority that could be held culpable when things get really exciting.

rotating villain [urbandictionary.com]:
"In American democracy, when the majority party has enough votes to pass populist legislation, party leaders designate a scapegoat who will refuse to vote with the party thereby killing the legislation. The opposition is otherwise inexplicable and typically comes from someone who is safe or not up for re-election. This allows for maximum diffusion of responsibility."

  It works for elections, also

Romney Is Full of %*#% (-1)

ambidextroustech (2597091) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050549)

Romney believes net neutrality will restrict ISPs, and that they alone should govern their networks. The governor has stated that he wants as little regulation of the internet as possible

Then, Romney should be in favor of net neutrality since he's in favor of smaller government? I don't understand why anyone will vote for this man when he clearly wants to increase regulation, which will cause an increase demand for regulators thus expanding government/commercial authority.

I will not be voting for Romney; he talks out his ass.

In full support of Obama's stance. I might be able to see eye-to-eye with Ron Paul.

Re:Romney Is Full of %*#% (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41050573)

And Obama doesn't?

What a fucking sheep

Re:Romney Is Full of %*#% (5, Insightful)

detritus. (46421) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050623)

Obama talks out his ass too. The police state has increased dramatically under his watch. Whistleblowers, leakers, spying, assassinations, erosion of civil liberties, illegal wars, you won't get anything positive out of either of them.

Yeh yeh, other guys same blah blah (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41050763)

The usual 'the other guy is as bad or worse' claim. What's interesting about your comment is you didn't try and defend Romney's views.

Also assassinations? So Romney is *AGAINST* killing Bin Laden? Or was he in favor of it?

Illegal wars? You mean that French thing against Libya?? Where does Romney stand on that?

And that bill the Republican introduced to detain Americans without trial, are you still trying to pin that on Obama, is Romney *for* or *against* that bill?.

Is the Republican war against women on ceasefire this week or not? Is he pro abortion or anti-abortion?

That's the thing about Romney, I can tell you where his party stands, but I can't tell you where he stands on any issue. ANY issue, he's all over the place.

Re:Yeh yeh, other guys same blah blah (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050847)

Well of course, Romney is a career politician, his entire job description is to be all over the place to gain votes. The only candidates who stick to a consistent position are considered "unelectable".

And I doubt you can really say what the Republican party really stands on any one issue, anymore its made out of 3 major camps, you've got the "neo" conservatives which believe in having a strong offensive military and government control over the economy, you've got the tea partiers who want the big military but don't want the government control over the economy and then you've got the moderate libertarians who want a smaller military and less/no government control over the economy. You get guys ranging from John McCain and Dick Chaney all the way to people like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson who have put themselves at one time or the other under the Republican party banner.

Re:Romney Is Full of %*#% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41050839)

The only thing that differs between Presidents is the name you put on the check when you need to pay them off. It's been this way for a long time. The President is not a maker of policy, but a mouthpiece of policy. Making policy is the job of the wealthy people who own the money supply.

Net Neutrality is NOT smaller government (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050721)

Then, Romney should be in favor of net neutrality since he's in favor of smaller government? I don't understand why anyone will vote for this man when he clearly wants to increase regulation?

None of that made any sense.

Net neutrality is about putting controls on ISP's, controls that you WILL come to regret later as they add on more controls to limit what ISP's can do. Every regulation has begat more limiting regulations, often far beyond the original scope where regulations started.

That is why it is totally consistent to want smaller government and oppose net neutrality. That is why if you do not like things like SOPA you should also vote against anyone who supports regulations over the internet such as net neutrality.

I will not be voting for Romney; he talks out his ass.

Obama being re-elected would be the key for the REAL push for SOPA like controls. Remember the party Hollywood loves best.

If you want a truly free internet, don't vote for the person who wants to take away your freedom. It seems like such a simple statement, yet somehow YOU managed to get it totally backwards. How can you support a man that wishes to take away the right of an ISP to properly manage a network?

Re:Net Neutrality is NOT smaller government (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41050761)

Net neutrality is about putting controls on ISP's, controls that you WILL come to regret later as they add on more controls to limit what ISP's can do.

Then just oppose any further idiotic regulation that are actually bad, not net neutrality. Fuck ISPs that want to filter traffic.

That is why if you do not like things like SOPA you should also vote against anyone who supports regulations over the internet such as net neutrality.

That makes no sense. It's like saying that any government regulation will eventually lead a government to pass a law that allows it to murder any of its citizens at will. They're unrelated issues, and the draconian laws are what must be opposed, not all regulations. SOPA was bad because it actually promoted censorship (which net neutrality does not) and presumed guilt (among other things). Net neutrality is different. I wish people would stop saying that allowing the government to do one thing will lead to them doing something completely unrelated. Seriously, if that happens, oppose the thing that's actually bad!

Re:Net Neutrality is NOT smaller government (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050803)

Except for the fact that small regulations always allowed the government to gain more and more control. Just look at what a simple clause allowing the federal government to regulate interstate commerce has turned into, its gone from making sure that states get along to allowing the micromanagement of the tiniest thing because it might possibly have a very tiny chance of being traded interstate.

Re:Net Neutrality is NOT smaller government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41050841)

Except for the fact that small regulations always allowed the government to gain more and more control.

Then oppose the bad regulations. In case you haven't noticed, the government is trying and always will try to take away our rights. This will happen regardless of whether or not we have a few regulations on businesses here and there. Honestly, just... oppose draconian laws. That's all that we have to do. Just like with what happened with SOPA.

Re:Net Neutrality is NOT smaller government (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050893)

Ok, so how much cyanide do you want? All regulations in some way or another end up being draconian. Even the most innocent, common sense regulations end up being twisted by politicians, the regulatory committees or the courts to mean something completely different. Tell me, which regulations aren't draconian? Which ones won't be misinterpreted? The only sane course of action is to oppose all regulations except for the most basic restrictions against fraud and force and let the free market do its job. A limited government or limited regulation is an oxymoron, a government will never be limited, regulation will never be limited it will either end up as too much regulation or as fraud (the masses believe it to be run as according to the regulations but it isn't).

Consider the case of Wickard V. Filburn (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn [wikipedia.org] ) which took the phrase "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" in the US constitution and made it somehow apply to a guy growing wheat for his own consumption on his own farm. If something that basic can be so misinterpreted, what can't be misinterpreted?

Re:Net Neutrality is NOT smaller government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41051001)

All regulations in some way or another end up being draconian.

In the same way that laws against murder end up being draconian: people are no longer free to murder one another. I believe some regulations and laws are very sensible.

Which ones won't be misinterpreted?

This is the fault of an apathetic populace, not sensible regulations.

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" in the US constitution and made it somehow apply to a guy growing wheat for his own consumption on his own farm.

Oppose those, then. As I said, whether or not we have things such as net neutrality, the government will always try to take away our rights. Regulations aren't what creates these laws; the politicians do, and they're elected by the people. Eternal vigilance is what is needed. Stop opposing unrelated things out of fear that it's some sort of slippery slope.

If you think that mindlessly opposing all regulation will magically stop the government from being evil, you're in for a grand awakening.

Re:Net Neutrality is NOT smaller government (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about a year and a half ago | (#41051087)

I believe some regulations and laws are very sensible.

Ok, which ones? Other than the basic ones such as restrictions on force and fraud, meaning laws against murder, theft, (real) rape, etc. Which regulations do you think have been beneficial and haven't been twisted?

Oppose those, then. As I said, whether or not we have things such as net neutrality, the government will always try to take away our rights. Regulations aren't what creates these laws; the politicians do, and they're elected by the people. Eternal vigilance is what is needed. Stop opposing unrelated things out of fear that it's some sort of slippery slope.

Ok, but show me which ones won't be misinterpreted. Honestly if I was one of the ones approving the brand new US constitution I don't think that I could have ever dreamed that those words would have been taken in such a way to prevent the personal consumption of wheat by the federal government. I mean, would you have?

There is every evidence for a slippery slope and you haven't shown any evidence to show it doesn't exist. I gave a clear and well known example of how the slippery slope does in fact exist and you've done nothing to counter that basic argument. There are dozens of other cases like that where the Supreme Court has so grossly misinterpreted such a basic law or right. Just look at what the police are able to legally do today in regards to searches and seizures!

If you think that mindlessly opposing all regulation will magically stop the government from being evil, you're in for a grand awakening.

Regulations and laws are how the government is able to act in an evil manner. They are like fangs to a rattlesnake, if you take out the fangs and the venom sacs of a rattlesnake it can't do a whole lot to hurt you, sure, it can be annoying, mean, and generally unpleasant to be around, but its a lot better than a rattlesnake with fangs and poison. A government with broad powers of regulation and broad abilities to make laws are like that rattlesnake with its teeth and poison, reducing the power it has to regulate and make laws slowly takes away those tools of evil making it a whole lot more safer.

Re:Net Neutrality is NOT smaller government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41051137)

There is every evidence for a slippery slope

Where? There's evidence that the government has done evil things, but no evidence that it's because of unrelated regulations. They would do evil things no matter what, and if their desired law doesn't exist, they'll try to create it. Opposing bad laws is the answer.

Regulations and laws are how the government is able to act in an evil manner.

No, the government is able to act in an evil manner because it exists and it's given the power to do so by the people. Your solution seems to be to throw the baby out with the bathwater and oppose even good laws because you feel there's some slippery slope (although I suspect our definitions of the word "good" are very different).

I believe the solution is not to oppose all regulation, but to oppose bad regulation. If you see bad regulation, oppose. Because bad laws sure as hell aren't going to stop as long as the government exists.

Re:Net Neutrality is NOT smaller government (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about a year and a half ago | (#41051195)

Did you not read this case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn [wikipedia.org]

Or how about this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_v._United_States [wikipedia.org]

Or this one? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/us/justices-approve-strip-searches-for-any-offense.html?pagewanted=all [nytimes.com]

Or what about the FDA raiding "raw milk" sellers? http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/08/the-latest-raw-milk-raid-an-attack-on-food-freedom/243635/ [theatlantic.com] Do you really think that those approving the bill creating the FDA would ever think of taxpayer money being wasted on these non-crimes?

And there are many, many, many, more. All regulation turns into bad regulation, its the nature of government to want more and more power, the only way to stop it is to have clearly defined boundaries like what the framers of the US constitution wished, but has been clearly ignored like in the Wickard v. Filburn case referenced earlier.

There is no way to know whether a law would be "good" or "bad" until after it is signed into law and (mis)-interpreted by the regulators and the court system. A law that sounds good on paper does not always translate to a good law in practice. Since there is no way to know whether a law would be "good" or "bad" the best course of action is to oppose them unless they have clearly defined boundaries, in the case of Net Neutrality I can see it opening up a whole other can of worms where the government decides what can and can't be on the internet, much like how Europe is going where a pro-regulation environment has allowed for entire sites to be blocked. Even the most "evil" ISP in America doesn't block The Pirate Bay but in Europe just about every ISP does.

Re:Net Neutrality is NOT smaller government (3, Insightful)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about a year and a half ago | (#41051057)

Then oppose regulatory over-reach. Oppose misrepresentation of standing laws. Fight court battles and write letters to congressmen about these issues. And stop turning every specific issue into a general one for whatever libertarian ideal you hold - there is nothing more toxic to effective opposition against bad laws then people who reframe every issue into some broader meta-fight, since it distracts from real discussion about the very specific issue's being addressed.

These things don't just happen - people let them happen. Our system of government is pretty uniquely equipped to prevent slippery slope fallacies from happening, but it doesn't work if when the vote is scheduled no one turns out for it.

Re:Net Neutrality is NOT smaller government (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about a year and a half ago | (#41051135)

Have you ever wrote a letter to your congressman? Back when the DMCA was first being drafted I wrote a couple of letters to my representative and senators urging them to oppose it and warning them of the dangers it would have to the fledgling internet. I got replies from both of them assuring me that they fully supported the DMCA and thanks for the letter...

There is a bigger picture, there is a broader history, the entirety of history simply screams that government regulations don't work. The history of the US Supreme Court is overflowing with misinterpreted laws, with laws that the people and Congress believed would be used for one thing but the court system and the regulatory bodies twisted it into another.

And you obviously have a much higher view of humanity than I have, do you really think that more people is the answer? Do you really believe that this nation would be any better if everyone showed up to vote? Do you really believe that freedom would win?

The US legal system may have been designed to prevent the slippery slope but it has failed. It has failed on numerous occasions.

Regulatory overreach will occur as long as you have regulations, plain and simple. The only way to prevent regulatory overreach is to reduce and eliminate many regulations and let the free market work as intended.

Re:Net Neutrality is NOT smaller government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41051165)

Regulatory overreach will occur as long as you have regulations

I'd say it won't stop occurring as long as we have a government. If their much-needed, 'evil' regulations don't exist yet, they'll likely try to create them. Then you have a problem on your hands: as you probably noticed, it's sometimes difficult to get the government to listen to the people when nearly everyone is apathetic. So whether or not the laws already are on the books, the problems will always be there.

Re:Net Neutrality is NOT smaller government (1)

Vaphell (1489021) | about a year and a half ago | (#41051183)

true that, never underestimate the ingenuity of the govt when it tries to justify its existence and expand its scope.
What is particularly bad in the US legal framework is that these fucking ridiculous rulings filling ad hoc political need (like this one, cracking down on smartasses not playing ball with central planners during the great depression) instead of being revised, trashed, buried and forgotten become de facto laws themselves and pollute the legal system to eternity.

Re:Net Neutrality is NOT smaller government (2)

trampel (464001) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050823)

How can you support a man that wishes to take away the right of an ISP to properly manage a network?

You seem to confuse the right of the ISP to properly manage a network with the right of the ISP to manage the network content.

I'm all for the former. Not so much for the latter.

Nor am I (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050929)

You seem to confuse the right of the ISP to properly manage a network with the right of the ISP to manage the network content.

YOUR confusion is that they are unrelated.

An ISP does not care to manage network content today because that involves more work, which eats into profit.

So then Network Neutrality is passed, which adds whatever regulation the government feels is most appropriate for an ISP. Blocks on government disliked IP addresses. No torrent traffic allowed. So on and so forth.

All this is wrapped in the blanket of "we'll make sure you can access any legal website from your ISP", but you can already do that TODAY. So why give the government a toehold to dictate what is appropriate for you to access and force your ISP to comply?

If you care at all about even handed access to content, Network Neutrality is the last thing you want to support. It is the biggest twisting of words attempted in history, it assumes that technological people can be easily swayed by a catchy name. Do not let that be true.

Re:Net Neutrality is NOT smaller government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41050865)

For a business, "properly manage a network" only means "whatever makes us the most money." Competition and public opinion sometimes slow them down but not always. Cable monopolies and event ticketing come to mind. I think you would be a fool to trust business to "properly" do anything because their definition of this word is a lot different than ours.

And that is best (-1, Troll)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050903)

For a business, "properly manage a network" only means "whatever makes us the most money."

Which is why ISP's do not block content today, because it's far easier just to allow you to access whatever.

With net neutrality ISPs will be REQUIRED to shape network access according to current regulation. With mandated equipment to do so in place, THEN ISP's will use those tools to reduce network traffic in ways they do not bother today. Today no torrent traffic is blocked, in a post-network neutrality world you can kiss it goodbye (and your attempt will be logged).

You simply are not thinking through what happens when the government makes companies put in place extra equipment to control network flow.

Re:And that is best (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41051061)

I think Network Neutrality is more of a fight over how the Internet will be in the future, not today.

While right now perhaps it's far easier to allow you to access whatever...I do NOT think that will be true in the near future. With or without government regulations.

These systems/technologies will come anyway because they help ISPs make money. The more IPS can control/shape/tier traffic, the more options they will have to maximizes their profits. And maximizing profits is literally all that corporations care about.

I guess on the bottom line, I just don't trust corporations to keep the Internet as open, free, and accessible as it is today. I think in the past and maybe today they really didn't have any technologies that let them put it under their thumb, but I think in the near future they WILL have these technologies, and I think they'll use them as much as they possibly can to make money.

Re:Net Neutrality is NOT smaller government (0)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050985)

So the answer to something caused by government (most cable monopolies are subsidized either in the past or in the present, few are free market "monopolies") is more government? Is the answer to cyanide poising more cyanide?

There is a reason that a good chunk of ISPs don't throttle connections it is because it makes more sense for them financially not to.

If/When net neutrality is in place the next step will be to have mandatory monitoring and blocking of "offending" sites. Just look at Europe for example where government regulation of the internet is commonplace, a lot of ISPs have blocked The Pirate Bay due to court orders, on the other hand, I don't know of a single major US ISP that has blocked The Pirate Bay.

Net Neutrality /will/ restrict ISPs (4, Funny)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050577)

From being greedy anti-competitive asshats. That's the whole idea.

Re:Net Neutrality /will/ restrict ISPs (2, Insightful)

exabrial (818005) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050601)

Exactly! Just look at how well our current regulations work in the oil, auto, loan, and investment industries to understand why intense regulation is the key to success!

Re:Net Neutrality /will/ restrict ISPs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41050631)

Look up regulatory capture.

Re:Net Neutrality /will/ restrict ISPs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41050643)

because we'd be even more fucked if they weren't. granted, the lessor of two evils is still evil.

Re:Net Neutrality /will/ restrict ISPs (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41050675)

Now look at the entirety of the 19th century for what libertarians want!

Re:Net Neutrality /will/ restrict ISPs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41050859)

Oh hey, what a surprise, someone modded me down. Yes, I'm sure eliminating all regulatory agencies and all regulatory legislation on corporations will totally turn out different this time around. Trying the same experiment twice and expecting different results is... wait, how does this saying go again?

Re:Net Neutrality /will/ restrict ISPs (5, Insightful)

DarkFencer (260473) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050677)

Exactly! Just look at how well our current regulations work in the oil, auto, loan, and investment industries to understand why intense regulation is the key to success!

You mention auto regulation. Not sure why. Cars are much safer than they have ever been, fuel efficiency is better than ever (and will continue to increase due to regulation). Cars have not increased at a faster pace then inflation. They properly regulated auto manufacturing industry is a perfect example of how things SHOULD be done.

Re:Net Neutrality /will/ restrict ISPs (5, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050779)

1. If someone thinks the regulations we have are bad, the solution isn't no regulation, but good regulation

2. The oil, loan, and investment industries are mostly self regulated, as their regulatory bodies do not have the manpower or resources to actually verify the things they do.
Hence the constant string of disasters in finance and the dumping of unfiltered wastes by the oil/fracking and mining industries.

Re:Net Neutrality /will/ restrict ISPs (1)

DECula (6113) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050955)

    I'm all for net neutrality, it has worked worked pretty darned well so far.
    When carriers/ISPs become greedy, you will see the same results we saw
    with banks and the financial sector doing what the hell they wanted - a middle
    class still paying for it.

Let's make a deal. (4, Insightful)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050593)

Government should regulate the internet as little as possible? Great! Let's make a deal! You repeal copyright, completely, and invalidate all communications-related patents and we'll tolerate ISPs that want to favor their own IP TV over that of competitors.

No? Yeah. Thought so.

Or to put it as succinctly as possible: Romney wants as little regulation of the internet as possible? Bullshit.

Re:Let's make a deal. (-1)

tyrione (134248) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050733)

Eff you on repleas of Copyright. Go create something worth reading, hearing, admiring and then if you want to give it away so be it. Don't tell me I'm going to have to suck it up and lose my Copyrights.

Re:Let's make a deal. (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050777)

Copyright is silly, its not property, it shouldn't be treated as such.

If you are really good at creating something, you will make money without resorting to imaginary property. Be it live performances, lectures, donations, guidance, etc. Will the death of imaginary property mean the end of a lot of mediocrity? Yes. Will it be the death of truly great artists and authors? Of course not.

Re:Let's make a deal. (1)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050825)

I have. I write open source code. I've released some of it into the public domain.

What was your point again?

Re:Let's make a deal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41051055)

You are aware that it is copyright that prevents Microsoft and apple from taking all the gpl code, copying it in to their code base and not releasing any changes?

I doubt that is what most open source people want.

Re:Let's make a deal. (2)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about a year and a half ago | (#41051187)

Go make something "real" (a table, a building, a computer network, a toy or a television) and then realize that you have to make a new one every time you want to get paid again. That's how the REST of us make a living, by working continuously and saving our money, not by making a recording at the age of 18 and then being paid repeatedly for copies other people make for the next 50 years. Just because what you make is "creative" and non-tangible, doesn't make it worth any more that what the rest of us make.

little regulation AKA (3, Insightful)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050667)

As little regulation as possible AKA no regulation for the companies, but real name policies, regulations on how we can use those connections, and everything monitored.

Translations for non-Americans (2)

CrossCompiler (69816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050719)

Anti-neutrality (a.k.a. anti-regulation)
My friends / owners / suzerains already control that industry.

Pro-neutrality (a.k.a. pro-regulation)
My enemies control that industry, or my decision is still for sale (applies to government officials only).

A compromise (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050725)

How about a compromise that would:

A) Preserve property rights
B) Protect the internet
C) Keep the internet free

What I propose is that net neutrality be built into the requirements for ISPs to obtain federal/state/local funding. Don't want to implement net neutrality? Don't take taxpayer dollars. Want to take taxpayer dollars for your ISP? Implement net neutrality.

Its the best of both worlds.

um ... (2)

oneiros27 (46144) | about a year and a half ago | (#41051041)

So the problem is that there's still the question of what exactly 'net neutrality' means by the time someone works it into legislation. Odds are, there will be some glaring loopholes put in my some staffer who the week after it passes gets hired by a corporation or lobbyist organization.

For instance ... if we must pass all 'legal' traffic, what about e-mail that complies with the CAN-SPAM act? Would we be allowed to filter that out, or does it have to go through to the customer's mailboxes?

What I'm pissed off about isn't that ISPs filter -- it's that they lie and claim they're not, until it's shown that they are.

So, my proposal:

If you do *no* filtering what-so-ever, you're considered a 'common carrier', and would not be held liable for the actions of the people whom you are granting service to. If you filter or otherwise prioritize packets based on content or destination, you could be held liable for not blocking fraudulent or other illegal activity.

And we'd also have to redefine 'broadband coverage' to specifically require a common carrier to qualify an area as having coverage.

ps. 'implementing' net neutrality == not

they all use public land (2)

bussdriver (620565) | about a year and a half ago | (#41051069)

Public land is heavily used by all ISPs. The ones that connect to your house they use public land to get to your house (the road system) while you could say that is not something that belongs in the discussion because it is not giving them money. I would say that public land which connects everybody together is an EXTREMELY valuable asset and the fact the public owns it is the reason we easily added infrastructure we take for granted. To allow private use of OUR land is a massive huge handout.

Same thing goes to our AIR SPACE over which the radio travels; although, we tend to think of that solely as a regulatory situation.

It doesn't matter what they say (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050741)

You just have to flip a coin and wait to see what they actually do. Then, when they fuck it up, you can reelect them..

It's not regulation versus no regulation (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41050799)

Many people here are discussing if regulation is a good idea. That's easy to answer - good regulation is good and bad regulation is bad. There's plenty of bad regulation and plenty of good regulation. If some crazy person says that all regulation is bad I don't know what to say, but I think most people here won't think that. The real issue is what regulation is good and clearly some sort of net neutrality regulation is good - the question there then is, what kind of net neutrality do we want? For example it seems to me to be perfectly fine to set a flag that you want to voluntarily reduce your current bandwidth in return for getting better latency for the duration of your gaming session, but then your ISP isn't dealing with your packets in a neutral way anymore. Good regulation should allow that. On the other hand obviously it's horrible if the ISP gets to blackmail popular sites by giving customers a worse experience on those sites unless those sites pay up. Good regulation should not allow that.

The Argument Against Net Neutrality (1)

winmine (934311) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050843)

You've seen the image where a non-neutral internet service is selling cable-like tiers, as if the costs of uploading content to cable TV were in any way comparable to the costs of uploading content to other PCs. Even the busiest web sites operate on hardware budgets of four or five figures, while a TV studio will end up with five or six figures of equipment.

This means that internet content will be inherently more diverse than TV content. If the concern raised by a non-neutral internet was one of centralized content providers, then I would say that net neutrality has done more harm than good.

Where do we see the most monopolies? The internet. Why should this be?

I think it is because half of Google's bandwidth costs are paid for by internet service customers - all of them, all of us. Since every bit has to be priced roughly the same, with only monthly volume taken into account, business models that depend on high bandwidth tend to flourish.

In a way this is good, since popular opinion tends to win out. But in a way this is bad, since that opinion is not allowed to change very fluidly. Amazon's and Ebay's costs are scaled such that theirs are very low compared to those entering the market. Therefore they can charge much lower royalties on items advertised on their pages.

The reason that internet monopolies are particularly bad is because of privacy concerns, and the unilateral data collected from people. When one company is providing a given service, it's not just creepy, it's a system that tracks current preferences and depends on them. New services will be very slow to emerge when all of the data suggest that people like old services.

I think if you want a more dynamic internet with more options, vote against net neutrality.

Obama's Net Neutrality (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41050855)

My guess is that Obama believes in Net Neutrality thusly: "Net Neutrality is when web pages are forced to weigh in on both sides of a political issue, then lean left after presenting both sides. If not, they're not being neutral, and should be fined."

So we're screwed either way (2)

ALeader71 (687693) | about a year and a half ago | (#41050907)

One more reason why I'm not voting. At this point I'm not choosing, I'm enabling.

Obama says he supports Net Neutrality, then gives cart blanche to the well funded carriers. Landline Internet? Ha! One of my techs found out his Comcast service is capped at 200GB per month.

At least Romney is honest about his corporate ties, which is the biggest reason not to vote for him or any Republican. The other being they are on a similar Moral Crusade just like the Democrats. Unless you buy that "only sensible/intelligent/reasonable people would think the way I do bent of the current D-P leadership.

Are the libertarians bothering to put up an also-ran candidate this year?

Re: Just another Re: amongst the countless. (1)

andrew2325 (2647845) | about a year and a half ago | (#41051049)

I think that if we start censoring the web, it could cause a major problem. Like this will be overlooked by many because of the title. Most of the time websites are overlooked because of their title or content, whether it be because it's misinformed or something you simply don't want to see. There is a problem though. The problem is laws, other than copyright laws, are often video taped and placed on the web. I personally don't go looking for anything crazy on the web, but I feel as though it'd be my right to censor my home network of certain things, especially if a child were present. Let's face it, somethings are big boy talk. Other things aren't. I agree that for education's sake, human right's sake, , many websites shouldn't be censored by a parent. It's important to discuss the views contained from an educated stand point with your children, but there are some sites... I'd prefer that I'd never seen them. I'm sure almost anyone could agree they've run across a few that should definitely not be on the web, and there are probably a few that should definitely not be in open view for anyone with unrestricted internet or access to a tunnel to view. The question is where should this line be drawn. Over all, I'm for net neutrality, unless that physically hurts another human being is literally being committed in plain view. Like should a child be able to easily get their hands on pornographic materials, definitely not. Whether or not it should be legal in the first place is a different story altogether, and what should be legal in that domain and what should not be legal, and then you run into the whole big can of worms because this may infringe on someone's religious freedom or something of that sort. Of course, all human beings can fall into temptation, Lord knows I have in several ways throughout the years. To paraphrase the Bible, I'd say out of sinners I am chief. Or something to that affect. The beauty of Christianity is the idea of redemption, reform, and hope. Even to people who have done horrible things. So is it a corporation or media provider's right to censor the web? I think it is, as long as they are not the sole provider of services to an area, and it is well documented in their user agreements. I live in an area where there are very few provider of internet services, and I don't think it's right, especially since there are other services provided to people within walking distances of the area in both directions. So, if it is their right to do so, a person, like me, given they are abiding by typical American law, should definitely be protected under some kind of clause in federal law in that circumstance especially. I'll personally be voting against Obama for a few reasons, but his stances on net neutrality are fairly agreeable to anyone with any sense.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...