I am admittedly confused.
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.
Vanities are not “news.” This belongs in chat.
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.
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.
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.
Net Neutrality = Net NOT Neutrality = censorship
1) Text, small data, high value info content
2) Audio, medium, lesser content
3) Video, HOG available data, poorest quality content
The NOT neutrality folks want high value content censored.
Less DrudgeReports, censor conservative comments.
High video trash will HOG the internet data lines.
Net NOT Neutrality is CENSORSHIP of conservative truth.
AT&T, Verzion, a few others want total control of Internet.....Google, Facebook a few others want total control and just about have it. Net Neutrality big govt (bought and paid for in both parties) want total control of Internet.
None of the above groups have the American people’s best interest in mind.