Last year, after Comcast attempted to strangle the bandwidth of BitTorrent users, the Federal Communications Commission ruled that all internet providers must adhere to a policy “net neutrality” (basically, internet providers must provide the same speed to every one to access whatever website their user wants to see. Hear John Hodgman explain it on the Daily Show here, watch Rocketboom explain it here). This was excellent, because net neutrality is an important principle behind the open internet.Today, a Washington, D.C., court ruled that however excited new FCC commission Julius Genachowski was to regulate net neutrality, that’s actually not part of the FCC’s purview, so the order against Comcast’s policy was meaningless. Who can regulate the internet? Congress. Congress can also tell the FCC to do so, but as of yet, they haven’t. So, the seemingly settled net neutrality battle returns to Congress, where it has already generated quite a bit of silliness. We’ll be back following this issue with excitement, despite that fact that we don’t have Ted Stevens to kick around anymore. Watch him explain the internet”[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNEIf you’re still curious about why this matters: This is what your internet bill could look like without net neutrality.
Tags
advertisement
More for You
-
14 images of badass women who destroyed stereotypes and inspired future generations
These trailblazers redefined what a woman could be.
Throughout history, women have stood up and fought to break down barriers imposed on them from stereotypes and societal expectations. The trailblazers in these photos made history and redefined what a woman could be. In doing so, they paved the way for future generations to stand up and continue to fight for equality.
-
Why mass shootings spawn conspiracy theories
Mass shootings and conspiracy theories have a long history.
While conspiracy theories are not limited to any topic, there is one type of event that seems particularly likely to spark them: mass shootings, typically defined as attacks in which a shooter kills at least four other people.
When one person kills many others in a single incident, particularly when it seems random, people naturally seek out answers for why the tragedy happened. After all, if a mass shooting is random, anyone can be a target.
Pointing to some nefarious plan by a powerful group – such as the government – can be more comforting than the idea that the attack was the result of a disturbed or mentally ill individual who obtained a firearm legally.
advertisement

