Replies

Boy you have really swallowed some Kool-aid.

It is the Flavor-Aid that has been drunk on the other side. There are actually a couple of issues here.

One, is net neutrality, that is, treating internet content equally, not putting up toll booths on the Internet, not treating an ISP's customers as leverage to milk money out of content providers. The only people against this are the ISPs, of course, and those who have drunk the Flavor-Aid from their multiple astroturf organizations and bribes to politicians.

The other is what net neutrality has morphed into, restrictions on content on the Internet. Note that this is exactly the opposite of net neutrality. It has morphed into this for two reasons.

One, the above astroturf organizations and paid politicians want to demonize net neutrality, so they simply lie about it, turn it into a conservative cause, and sheeple conservatives lap it up.

The other is that the Democrats want to control the Internet, and they see this thing that is popular with the people called net neutrality, so they take it and turn it on its head. Now they have a bunch of ideals, such as the fairness doctrine (which net neutrality would outlaw), and slip it into the public discussion as net neutrality. This way the people who thought they were for freedom by supporting anything under the net neutrality name don't even know they're supporting the opposite.

As far as any control over the Internet, it is an interesting choice. Do you want the government telling ISPs they can't do certain things, or do you want to be your ISP's bitch just because they have a monopoly on the last-mile?

Please have a look-see into the group who is at the forefront of pushing net 'neutrality':

Google and other content-providing companies who would have to pay billions to the ISPs to get their content to you are at the forefront of pushing net neutrality.

Do you want the government telling ISPs they can't do certain things, or do you want to be your ISP's bitch just because they have a monopoly on the last-mile?

I would much rather have a private company that I have recourse to (by using my feet) than the government telling private companies what can and cannot permit on THEIR lines (Yes, they ran THEIR OWN Fiber to my utility pole).

I hated Comcast so I went with Fios. When I start to hate Fios I will go with satellite. When I hate them all I will get a wireless connection, etc... Let the market work!

I have no such recourse with the government bureaucracy.

Google and other content-providing companies who would have to pay billions to the ISPs to get their content to you are at the forefront of pushing net neutrality.

Google is also in bed with the Government on a lot of other things...and they know they'll be able to buy their way around whatever content controls are imposed.

Bottom line is - what do you want? Corporate control of the internet, like you have now? Free speech unregulated, pretty much anything goes. Providers do have the authority to cap bandwith and filter traffic...but hey, it's their equipment.

Or government control. Where a Washington career union bureaucrat gets to assess what speech and content is acceptable and 'neutral' and therefore not subject to state review?

I'll take the 'captialist pig' approach, thanks.

"As far as any control over the Internet, it is an interesting choice. Do you want the government telling ISPs they can't do certain things, or do you want to be your ISP's bitch just because they have a monopoly on the last-mile?"

This does seem like the dynamic at play here. I have to say however, that I fear the government, not AT&T.