Net neutrality simply isn’t. Just as Antifascist is not and the anti-Christian Human Rights Commission is not for equal human rights
Look at Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter.
They don’t want ISPs throttling the bandwidth for their content but they sure as hell will downthrottle YOUR own content and your interaction with your followers.
>Admittedly, I don’t understand the net-neutrality issue that well, but if it’s being constantly pursued by leftists it’s a really bad thing.
Basically providers want to be able to charge large streamers like Netflix for clogging up bandwidth with massive streams of video data. Net Neutrality basically says that data should “be treated equally” and thus not charged extra even though video streamers are many times 60-80% of the provider’s bandwidth.
Typical way Republicans still have no clue about how to deal with government. Under the same circumstances, the RATS always have the outgoing whatever resign before so that the new RAT appointee remains entrenched. That's how we're stuck with them all over the place. I have no problem with Pai leaving, but at least go on January 1 so that the rest of us have a fighting chance because President Trump names his successor.
Biden is still not President Elect.
Just go back to some old posts. The doctrine had strong support on FR. Some Freepers were worried that they may not be able to stream unlimited amounts of movies while some others wanted the fed to force social media to carry all content. The was also great confusion as to what was to be “neutral”. Many thought this was simply a reg that applied to the physical infrastructure and IP providers. They missed the point that this was about regulating speech.
They entirely misunderstood the issue. One only needs to understand the Fairness Doctrine to get an idea of Net Neutrality will be applied.
As I understand it net neutrality gives government (and their favored corporate buddies) the ability to ration bandwidth as they see fit.
We all know how that works when government is handing out fairness.
Rural areas can have such access (e.g., satellite), it simply costs them more. If they felt it was worth it, they'd buy it. Arguing "but the poor children won't be able to do their homework" doesn't cut it either, for the same reason. Indeed, the proportion of children living in rural areas continues to decline, so a blanket "fix" would reach a declining number of people it's suppose to help.
I think our collective goal should be to get the gov't out of our lives, not more into it.
Click on https://45.79.56.181/tag/*/index and you will get a bunch of pointless warnings which you can bypass and then view FR without your ISP getting in the way. Similarly, you should add 8.8.8.8 or even better a non-google DNS server like one from this list https://www.lifewire.com/free-and-public-dns-servers-2626062 Your ISP can really only block your access by messing with DNS and you should never trust their DNS regardless and always use your own. They can block by messing with the routing tables but that's much more difficult and would ultimately fail. Finally they can block like AOL or China by putting you behind a firewall. But that would be rejected and they would go out of business.
In short, net neutrality is for lazy people who think that the government will protect them from ISP hanky panky. But in the long run the opposite is true, the government and ISPs will collude to limit your internet freedom. The only way around it is to be knowledgeable.
I had high hopes, for Ajit.
He’s been a let down, imo.
The Net Neutrality Act makes the Internet neutral like the Affordable Healthcare Act made healthcare affordable.
All you to know about Net Neutrality is that Obama got $100 million from Netflix.
Netflix is an over the top provider of internet services — movies, TV, etc.
Obama delivered net neutrality for Netflix and was paid a reword accordingly.
The problem with Netflix is they expect to pay zero fees when the ability to deliver the service needs to be paid for by telecoms and ISPs who actually own networks and raise the money to support them and buy wires, cables, switches for which Netflix wouldn’t exist.
So net neutrality was always a con to stiff the companies providing the satellites, cables, and high speed internet services.
People need to pay for what that use. Otherwise we become like California where they have rolling blackouts because they refuse to pay Pacific Electric to maintain their network properly to prevent fire and other natural disasters from damaging the lines.
Net neutrality...Obamacare for the internet.