Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know exactly what it means. "We don't think it's fair that the companies that build the servers that power the internet should have more access than a bunch of dirty hippies who reflexively hate capitalism". It's pretty easy. So which bunch of dirty hippes are you going to appoint to control access? At what levels? What would the penalties be?
I know what Net Neutrality is, but I don't TRUST any "comprehensive, 1,000 page bills" suggested by a President that has LIED, and LIED and LIED about the other big bills.
When we get a decent Congress that can sit down and actually look at facts and work things out - I open to listen.
Until then .... No Way.
I know exactly what it means. "We don't think it's fair that the companies that build the servers that power the internet should have more access than a bunch of dirty hippies who reflexively hate capitalism". It's pretty easy. So which bunch of dirty hippes are you going to appoint to control access? At what levels? What would the penalties be?
The companies that are constantly attacking municipalities from setting up cheaper, faster internet service for those living in their towns?
Or the companies that are constantly attacking Google's attempts at putting theirs out for the public to use? Or against any competition at all?
Internet companies in the states whine all the time, and yet we're paying more for worse service. Net neutrality is about them trying to squeeze more while refusing to provide their consumers with what much of the rest of the modern world already has. Being able to deliver on what they advertise would be a nice start.
The provision for broadband/dsl/other internet access should be removed from any other utility (telco, cable) and left to compete as a separate and independent company, with no government regulation of rates, access, or content.
Any start up company to provide other ISP service must be allowed private and equal access to to carrier facility. It's been done before, it's how we got here.
And yes, 'it's up to the individual then to know where the cheap gas is.' That's what advertising does.
I know exactly what it means. "We don't think it's fair that the companies that build the servers that power the internet should have more access than a bunch of dirty hippies who reflexively hate capitalism".
"servers that power the internet"? That's a new one.
It's not about the servers. The companies that want net neutrality have all the servers they want. It's how content gets from their servers to their clients.
By keeping it neutral, all websites have an equal chance at being viewed, sent to the viewer's home at an equal amount of time as any other website.
By not keeping it neutral, some websites could pay for faster service to a viewer and therefore throttle (slow down) the speed of other websites.
An analogy would be:
Independent gas stations are allowed to set up a gas station anywhere and when they do finally make their gas stations, the large corporate gas stations are allowed to build their gas stations bigger and better and right in front of the independent gas stations thus getting all the independent gas station's customers (they wouldn't see the indie gas stations.)
No, the question is:
Will government's incompetent and expensive meddling prevent a problem that does not exist?
I am a Comcast user and Netflix member, and I must say the difference in speed from that big deal they made was not terribly apparent. I'm not sure how I feel about net neutrality, I can see both sides. Regardless, I think the implications of passing it/not passing it are way overblown on both sides.
What do all the people against this think the government is going to do? They won't be regulating rates so much as preventing companies from regulating rates, and not even to the consumer, just to the backend infrastructure.
An analogy would be:
Independent gas stations are allowed to set up a gas station anywhere and when they do finally make their gas stations, the large corporate gas stations are allowed to build their gas stations bigger and better and right in front of the independent gas stations thus getting all the independent gas station's customers (they wouldn't see the indie gas stations.)
They are. It's called "freedom". It's called "competition".
It's the reason milk is not $40/gallon and available only by prescription on alternate Thursdays.
It's the reason why we don't all drive Trabants we had to wait 3 years to have built.
It's the reason why we have 30 brands of competing computers and scores of operating systems, and the prices are reasonable.
It's the reason why you can own a home, or rent, or build your own, or even choose to hide out in the wilderness.
It's the reason why those "indie" gas stations develop innovative reasons to get you to come to them instead of the cookie cutter corporate stations.
It's amazing how some curse the blessings they have, pining to live in tyranny and darkness.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.