We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
“We don’t have a First Amendment, we don’t have a religion of free speech,” she explained patiently. “Students sign off on all kinds of agreements as to how they’ll behave on campus, in order to respect diversity, equity, all of the values that Canadians really care about. Those are the things that drive our political culture. Not freedoms, not rugged individualism, not free speech. It’s different, and for us, it works.”
I wold agree that a cyberspace bill of rights is - well, sort of dumb, but the overall concept of net neutrality is an important one. Unfortunately that whole concept is about to come to a screeching halt due to the recent court decision in favor of Comcast.
Out here in the hinterland, we're kind of stuck with Charter - who is a horrible provider compared to Comcast or Time Warner in other parts of the state - we don't even have DSL on our street because we're too far from a node to have any kind of speed at all. It net neutrality were in effect, there would at least be some kind of competition to both lower costs and increase choice - but we ain't got that.
So in a sense, we do need a "cyber bill of rights" - even if this one seems a little goofy.
Redstate is wrong by the way. If some sort of open net regulation/policy is not enforced by the FCC, then the potential for an ISP with a political view opposed to Redstate's could, not that they would, intentionally slow down access to Redstate, or reroute through slower routes, etc.
Comcast just won their case based on this very concept - they feel they don't have to provide high speed service at all times to other ISPs/users and further, if you use too much bandwidth, you can be restricted even though you pay for that bandwidth.
The real issue in lack of investment in new technology, upgrading of the current system to handle higher loads, etc. The cable companies are perfectly happy with the way it is now and don't want to spend the money to upgrade. That's what this is really about because if net neutrality was in force, they would be forced to compete by increasing their technology, access and compete with pricing.