I am admittedly confused.
Posted on 05/14/2017 6:46:38 AM PDT by Baynative
Can anyone explain Net Neutrality for me? I have been reading different commentaries and it seems like the regulations put in place by Obama were preserving the freedom of usage and access.
But, I naturally don't trust him or the way it is all being presented.
(Excerpt) Read more at freerepublic.com ...
https://youtu.be/6Q5_oV4JB10 Everything you need to know Ajit Pai FCC chairman tells you
Those wanting net neutrality don't want the Comcasts of the country to get extra profit at the expense of making their website access slower by default, as prioritizing bandwidth means there is already scarcity of speed and throughput.
But I read a column he wrote that doesn't seem to follow that ideal.
I can't come to trust anything where Microsoft and google are heavily involved.
Vanities are not “news.” This belongs in chat.
Scarcity? Or shortage? There is a difference, isn’t there...
:-)
Here is where it gets interesting. The government, that has never seen a problem that it can't "solve" by making worse, decided to get involved. People became convinced that we needed something called net neutrality, to make sure that some providers didn't charge more for different sites. Propaganda suggesting censorship was hinted at. Government was itching to get at the internet and this was their door.
Meanwhile, Verizon's suit dragged on, but Verizon decided to end unlimited data. Other data providers followed suit. Eventually, they upgraded their networks, Trump became POTUS and drove a well deserved stake through the heart of "Net Neutrality" and, "surprise" Verizon is now offering unlimited data again. Problem solved without the government. But that doesn't stop the bureaucrats from still trying for that power grab.
The internet was free. Obama and his types want to increase regulation of everything on it, content, traffic, etc.
And in the grand tradition of federal legislation, the Title will always mean the precise opposite of the goal of the law.
Affordable healthcare act and PATRIOT act are two examples.
Net neutrality sounds really nice and fair. The opposite is true.
Excellent analysis.
If a little regulation makes things seem unfair, then double down repeatedly until we reach fairness. Of course, after each cycle of regulation, unfairness increases. So that means we have to try even harder.
We don’t trust the free market. But by providing neutrality for Juan Chivo, google, netflix and comcast we are protecting the status quo relationship, which means we are making it more difficult for innovation and nearly impossible for new competitors to emerge.
What regulation does succeed at is increasing the need for more regulation and more regulators. A very special part of the swamp.
It depends whether you are a believer in free markets or not.
The basis of net neutrality are how packets are routed on the internet backbone. The routers should not care what the packets contain, but provide each packet with the same level of service.
Your ISP is only the last link between you and the backbone. A typical packet will hit ten to fifteen routers as it makes its way to your computer.
Asian and European countries have apparently tracked down some more plentiful sources.
ROTF! Eric, you have a wonderful way with words! BTW, I got lost in Croydon once. Good times, good times.
Croydon, UK that is....
> “Those wanting net neutrality don’t want the Comcasts of the country to get extra profit at the expense of making their website access slower by default, as prioritizing bandwidth means there is already scarcity of speed and throughput.”
Disagree. What you describe is a false dichotomy.
And it’s not just you. You’re describing the debate as it has been served up to you, as served to most others.
To Baynative: the net-neutrality ‘debate’ is a corner cafe, the only cafe licensed to offer you two types of crap sandwiches, offering a bullcrap sandwich (no net-neutrality) or a chicken-crap sandwich (net-neutrality) on its menu. You’re confused because both menu items are crap and the debate cafe is not offering anything healthy. Well, there are healthy choices but it’s going to take an initiative like the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, promoted and signed into law by Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Yes, Comcast, Centurylink (formerly Qwest, formerly US West, formerly an RBOC of Ma Bell AT&T, etc.) and all the union-controlled, democrat-controlled roadkill of Judge Green’s landmark 1982 decision, all are wrestling to regain their glory days of regional monopoly status. The new fronts of Deep State establishments such as Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc. are also clamoring for market control which is ultimately content control.
What stands in their way are the feeble minds of socialist purveyors of net-neutrality
Hence, a choice of two crap sandwiches.
What would resolve your confusion is when you and a group of like-minded citizens unite to walk out of the cafe into a better establishment and carrying a boot to kick the old cafe’s owner in the rear end should he or she tell you that you can’t leave.
Don’t fall for the false dichotomy of government-regulated versus free-market solutions because neither of those current choices is what it claims to be.
“What regulation does succeed at is increasing the need for more regulation and more regulators.” Bingo! Government always becomes the problem. Ronald Reagan said the same.
For me, it boils down to private companies being able to take advantage of monopolistic features of the cable/broadband industry. Any time you have a situation like that, it's not necessarily correct to just say "let the private service providers do whatever they want".
When a company has been granted (or enjoys) a de facto monopoly over a resource, counterbalancing measures are sometimes justified.
Of course, there are highly dogmatic arguments to be made by both "sides", but this is a situation where some middle g round might need to be contemplated—although I can't say what that might be.
Having said all that, I haven't decided where I stand on the "net neutrality" issue...
I don't think net neutrality regulations are the answer, but easier ability to start ISP companies would certainly help. The fundamental problem is eventually going to be that you are going to buy what you think is "internet" from an ISP, but what you are going to get is going to be "Alphabet Inc." (google).
I am a fan of free markets, but there honestly is a serious danger in collecting all information through a single provider particularly one that pretentiously uses the motto don't be evil and proceeds to implement state censorship to get profits from China.
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.