First of all, the vast majority of my posts are strictly relayed information and fact, which does not necessarily reflect my own personal views and opinions.
If I state something that may be "speculation" or my personal opinion, I usually say so within the text.
If you read the links/information thoroughly, it
actually states that some Senators and House Reps. are seeking to produce legislation that would MANDATE Net neutrality (ISPs must not configure their services to alter or block access to certain sites, whether it be for profit by charging higher prices to be able to do so, or for any other reason). Therefore, ensuring Americans the freedom to access whatever site they choose, in defense of our freedoms.
Yes, Barton's bill is under controversy because his initial draft of this bill in November 2005 includes provisions stating that ISPs (broadband providers) MAY NOT block internet access to certain sites. However, his final version is much more vague, and simply states that the Federal Communications Commission has the authority to set rules and monitor/publish violations. Stated as such, this bill can now be "loosely interpreted", potentially leaving room for misbehavior/misconduct, lacking strong context for penalties (if an ISP blocks customer access or makes them "pay extra"). Thus, many Americans (
MYSELF included) are uncomfortable with this.
Senator Wyden is proposing to counter this House bill with legislation that ensures "access for all"...
According to
,
"Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, took aim at Barton's proposal on Monday. "This legislation begins the construction of a multilayered, toll-strewn information superhighway that is out of sync with what has made the Internet work: access for all," said Wyden, who introduced his own bill earlier this month mandating Net neutrality."
My opinion/suggestion relating to this ... Sen. Wyden (because of his stance on protecting our freedoms) ... perhaps he may be one of the "few and far between" who do not support the bill to prohibit online gambling, since many of the bills proposed so far over the years include provisions for ISPs to be able or even required to, block access to particular sites ... since he is now fighting this (a good thing for us). But exactly how he feels about online gambling, or gambling period, I don't know ... But fact states that he IS against blocking sites, and ensuring we can access any sites we choose to, so, you do the math.
It is also to prevent broadband companies (which are not part of any Government Agency) ... from potentially utilizing this as a method to raise rates and fees to their customers to be able to access what they should have been able to do freely in the first place. And groups such as Yahoo, Microsoft, etc. are looking to Congress to provide legislation to ensure this.
The "moral minority" that only want the elements of democracy that suit them should maybe consider the wider implications of such a stance. Russia in the 20th Century would make good research material. Anyhow, whats the betting they and the politicians proposing the bill "gamble" with stocks and shares? How do you counter that? With diluted proposals to suffocate "high risk" gambling? So what's investment in a new unproven company and market? The difference is that its in a more regulated and controlled environment with higher degrees of education and knowledge.
I'd probably have to hire a team of robots to handle the PABs. Or maybe I'll say the hell with it and leave the US players in the dust too 
