For the protection of women and children or some such nonsense, right?
For the protection of women and children or some such nonsense, right?
Well, the "issue" is (I think that's what is being spoken about here ...) "Net Neutrality" -- which has nothing to do with "women and children" ... LOL ...
As an issue apart from Fiorina, it's a valid one and it involves (what I think of it, anyway) as a "freedom of speech" protection for the Internet in that the Internet won't be "blocked" and "carved up" into sections and to get into those specialized sections, you will have to pay more (or to gain access to certain customers "corraled" by certain businesses -- you have to pay those businesses more money to gain access to those "customers" (namely someone like you who simply has "Internet access" and that's all) -- or else you can't access other websites and/or Internet services.
I think that these Internet services (all the packets of information) should not be treated any differently -- the one from the other -- no matter what the "services" are that they represent or the "information" inside those packets. All that should be "collected" by the business and "paid for" by the consumer -- is basically the amount of bandwidth that they are using.
If you have a higher usage of bandwidth, you pay more... that's easy and simple. But, don't discriminate on the basis of "what information you receive" on the Internet. That's the "freedom of speech" protection on the Internet that I'm talking about, anyway ... :-) ...