Posted on 11/13/2014 6:04:17 AM PST by maineman
I've researched the heck out of this BUT still don't get it. Just looking for a simple explanation for a simple man.
Think of it as a utility service...water, electricity, etc...
Meaning the government gets to regulate it instead of the ISP companies...
Wow! A real answer. Much appreciated.
The internet is...broken..., you see, and the Government is here to...fix...it.
It is a law to make the internet equal for abc, nbc, cbs, cnn, msnbc, and any other progressive broadcast or internet company who supports the Obama agenda.
It is not “fair” that Drudge can report from any and all resources without paying these resources.
The last election is a direct result of a runaway internet with all the support the Republicans get for putting out their message. If not for the internet, the Democrats would hold total power over us because theirs would be the only message we would receive.
I Ukraine, before the fall of communism, every apartment had a radio installed in their kitchen with one station to listen to...strictly the party line.
We cannot let the camel get his nose in this tent.
Now that sounds great in theory. But in reality it's an attempt by the federal government to control the content of the web and enforce it's standards of right and wrong over content. Think PBS. Think "fairness doctrine" by the FCC before Reagan. Think of TV and radio before Rush. Think of an internet where we're taxed to death and where non-leftist or anti-leftist content is eliminated.
It means everyone gets the same access and speed on the internet no matter what they pay or if they pay anything.
Because the internet is a basic human right.
What else did you expect from obama and the free sh*t army?
It means the government gets to decide how much bandwidth, and the pricing, each internet provider must provide to various areas. It also means the government gets to decide who gets to post what on the Internet: Censorship of conservatives.
change 'for the next hour' to 'the rest of your life'.
An effort to keep the Conservative Bloggers in line, no doubt.
Internet service providers have noticed that some businesses (Netflix, Google, etc) move a LOT more data than others. The ISPs want to increase prices for customers that move lots of data, or certain kinds of data, because the ISPs know that data is more valuable.
“Net neutrality” means ISPs won’t be allowed to charge different prices based on quantity/content, they’ll have to treat everyone the same and charge according to just one factor: bandwidth (how much data they send/receive per second or month).
It’s like the water company charging a restaurant more for their water because they need it more.
“Net neutrality” can also be considered an alternate term for “common carrier”: the phone company can’t listen to your phone call and charge more based on the content.
In plain English, it means that “everybody has equal access” and that “nobody should have to pay any more than anybody else”.
Well that sounds fair, right? To me, it’s kind of not.
You probably know (and it makes perfect sense) that watching movies over Netflix or whatever involves the biggest movement of “bits” over whatever pipe brings ‘net svce into your home. User “A” is a movie fiend and watches 20 or more movies a week. User “B” surfs the net, sends emails, looks for Amazon deals, checks out this and that, downloads some itunes (that is another biggish but nothing like movie bit-sucker) User “A” *also* does those casual things. But “A”’s movie usage could require 50 or 100 or FIVE hundred more times as much bandwidth and router usage (back at the central office of your ISP) So should “A” pay any more than “B”?
Speaking of central office, the massive Netflix user imposes a much bigger load for the ISP, and the more of those NFLX users there are, this requires expensive equipment upgrades all the time.
I myself think there’s reason for “A” to pay more than “B” (or, “B” to pay less) After all, “we” impose bigger road taxes for trucks than cars. Bridges charge bigger tolls for trucks than cars. Theory being, trucks cause more road wear.
The much bigger, perhaps more sinister implication, is the government control and all the fun stuff that usually implies.
If the idea is “access for all”, my view is that casual users should get a cheaper rate, which would make it easier for them. Massive users should pay more. But some folks view that as a “poll tax: kind of thing like voter ID. I will excuse myself from getting too far into weeds over the gov’t influence implications. The nub of the matter is, “should massive users pay more?”
What they say: Net neutrality will help the government protect you from service providers that may slow specific services down on your internet unless your providers pay for the bandwidth.
What they mean: The government will control the internet and you will get what services they think you need, at the speed they think you need them and at the price they think you should pay for them.
Before - FedEx. After - USPS
EVERY bill the progressives propose or pass does the exact opposite of what they name it or say it does.
You can bank on it.
Their success is wholly dependent on a.) lying; and b.) deceiving the citizenry.
It means your internet access will double in cost to you.... while low income slackers will get it for free via government subsidy.
It means I hope you kept your stationary and playing cards.
Net Brutality
Those arguing for Net Neutrality are demanding the ability to use government force to compel the subsidization of a private, for-profit business service. Allowing the FCC to regulate internet service as a utility is Step One.
Your forgot dominoes....
In concrete terms — The feds get to decide that Huffpo’s servers connect to the Internet by fiber optics and FR’s servers connect by carrier pigeon. That makes things fair.
Check your latest phone bill for an example.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.