According to this article, the new rules “will prohibit Internet service providers such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from blocking access to lawful content and websites.”
How is that a bad thing? I admittedly don’t know what “net neutrality” is ...
The media and the Dems lie when discussing their intentions.
I don’t get it either.
net neutrality is more like what we have now than the alternative, which would allow cable/ISP companies to control access to websites. If they didn’t like certain websites, or if certain websites didn’t pay extra money, they could block them or slow the feed to a trickle.
It’s the tip of the iceberg. Once it starts it goes down hill quickly and what they want to do is regulate what you see & read.
Why shouldn’t an internet service provider have the right to enter a private contract with it’s customers to provide whatever service they think is useful for the price they can agree upon?
Should the government require Target to sell every brand of shoe, rather than being allowed to limit which brands of shoes the shoppers who choose to use Target can purchase?
And why is the Federal Communications Commission, tasked with regulating the public airwaves, getting involved with internet service provided by a cable into my house?
Yes, somebody please explain to us neophytes.
Other than additional government regulation, what exactly does this mean to users of the internet?
I think it means they want EQUAL Internet service for everyone whether you pay for it or not. You know, something about the ‘rich’ being able to afford BETTER services if they pay for it.
******
“The supporters of net neutrality regulation believe that more rules are necessary. In their view, without greater regulation, service providers might parcel out bandwidth or services, creating a bifurcated world in which the wealthy enjoy first-class Internet access, while everyone else is left with slow connections and degraded content.”
“Without additional regulation, service providers are likely to continue doing what they are doing. They will continue to offer a variety of broadband service plans at a variety of price points to suit every type of consumer.” Bob Kahn, another computer scientist, has said net neutrality is a slogan that would freeze innovation in the core of the Internet.”
BTW: Yes, this sounds “great”. But if it was “great”, the companies wouldn’t need the law to tell them to do it, their customers would complain, either the company would change or some other company would step in, and the customers would move.
This on the other hand could drive up my costs, because other users decide that rather than watching Verizon shows, they are going to stream from some web site the same shows, thus overwhelming the network.
And yes, if I wanted to stream, I’d complain that I paid for the bandwidth. But we all know that we pay for bandwidth based on the concept that we don’t all use it at once, so we all get it at a lower total cost. Verizon isn’t rolling in money, so it’s clear their charges are somewhat in line with costs. But with net neutrality, I’ll pay a lot more, and since Verizon is regulated, they can’t simply change their charging scheme to make it “equitable”.
But my point isn’t whether one is better than the other, it’s that it’s between the company and me to decide what services they want to provide to me, and I want to buy. Government gets in the way, and I have no way to get my own best deal anymore.
It means that they can't make their own decisions about what clients to service. For example, if they choose to provide more service to businesses rather than political groups, that will be a no-no.
How is that a bad thing? I admittedly don’t know what “net neutrality” is ...
It is a bad thing on many levels in general and specifically.
We see here the government going beyond congressional mandate e.g. the people told government what the FCC can do AND NOW government tells the people what it can do. IT is a power grab plain and simple -REASONS good or bad are not relevant. The path to tyranny is always well intentioned. Here we see the government imposing itself upon yet another private and free enterprise to fix something that is not broken.
Doesn’t matter whether their initial purpose is a good or bad thing. It is the foot in the door to do what they want later.
Almost everyone (not me) thought that the Department of Homeland Security was a good thing when they created it. Now years later they are expanding their role into Climate Change.
You just can’t trust the ba$trades so why give them the leeway to start with? Besides the fact that I believe this is unconstitutional too.
Then you better start paying closer attention here...It is whatever they say it is, once they pass this law.
It's not. You have net neutrality right, but much of the opposition comes from attacking the fairness doctrine strawman or improperly applying slippery slope. But even as a net neutrality supporter, it would be interesting to see exactly how the FCC claimed this authority. Bureaucratic overreaching is still just as bad even when it is for a good cause.