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.
Without net neutrality there can be hope that liberal tech companies will take over the internet and shut down/price out all the conservative websites!
ISPs are already fiddling with broadband speed delivery, as we speak.
An example of this is ISPs who want to deliver content are slowing down competitor's content to make their's more attractive. It's pure manipulation by the ISP providers.
As far as Tuna vs. Steak..........., anyone who pay's for basic 1.5mhz broadband should get 1.5mhz broadband, uniformly across the spectrum.
conversely, if your ISP advertises 50.0mhz broadband bundles but slows down all your netflix movies, then you are being manipulated by the ISPs.
Bottom line, We the people own the airwaves. The ISPs just package content and deliver it through the publicly owned airwaves. The control should be in "We the people's" hands and not in the ISPs hands.
How can one ISP control their competitor's content speed? By being the cable company. Ok, sure, that you can get rid of, just like breaking up Ma Bell. We don't get that problem where I live because there is no cable - internet comes via DSL and it's just not a problem.
One could easily regulate the get what you pay for aspect of this using existing tort law that prevents companies from advertising a pound of coffee for sale when they only deliver to you 10 oz. Same goes really for getting the cable providers out of the ISP business. That can be done without regulating the internet as a utility.
I agree with you though, that if you pay for 1.5 Mbps that is what you should get. I just have no problem with those who want 2 Mbps having to pay a premium for it.
How can one ISP control their competitor's content speed? By being the cable company. Ok, sure, that you can get rid of, just like breaking up Ma Bell. We don't get that problem where I live because there is no cable - internet comes via DSL and it's just not a problem.
One could easily regulate the get what you pay for aspect of this using existing tort law that prevents companies from advertising a pound of coffee for sale when they only deliver to you 10 oz. Same goes really for getting the cable providers out of the ISP business. That can be done without regulating the internet as a utility.
I agree with you though, that if you pay for 1.5 Mbps that is what you should get. I just have no problem with those who want 2 Mbps having to pay a premium for it.
Looks like we're mostly on the same page over the issue, then.
The real point of the matter is that the carrier waves are owned by the people, in common. The issue is who will control those commonly owned carrier waves as applied to the internet.
the people or the ISP providers?
Common thinking is "We the people" should control and regulate the internet carrier waves through our existing agencies like the FCC. The ISPs can maintain control over content that flows over those carrier waves.
Carrier waves belong to the people. content belongs to the providers.
Simple.
Looks like we're mostly on the same page over the issue, then.
The real point of the matter is that the carrier waves are owned by the people, in common. The issue is who will control those commonly owned carrier waves as applied to the internet.
the people or the ISP providers?
Common thinking is "We the people" should control and regulate the internet carrier waves through our existing agencies like the FCC. The ISPs can maintain control over content that flows over those carrier waves.
Carrier waves belong to the people. content belongs to the providers.
Simple.
We're on the same page with the theory, but seem to differ quite a bit on how to best solve the problem of regulation.
A carrier wave is an interesting thing - you can transmit it through the air or over a wire. Traditionally speaking, the "airwaves" were considered to be public property, but that theory gets more sticky when those signals come to your house over a network of wires and infrastructure that was paid for and is maintained by a company who you pay to provide you with that signal. With airwaves, all you need is a suitable receiver. With cable, you need the company who provides your hookup.
From this point of view, I do not agree with you that the public owns internet signals, unless the public owns the physical network on which that signal travels. The government should not attempt to regulate the relationship between you and Cox cable or whoever if they are not providing the network that both of you are using.
On the other hand, they should be providing some level of consumer protection in dealing with ISP's like Cox. How to do that with a light hand is a bit of a stumper.
lol@coservatves jumping to conclusion without even studying the topic. That's why I hate politics.
Do you trust the government to make anything better?
Especially with this nitwit at the helm? I mean, he has an outstanding track record.
Why do lefties believe that government has YOUR best interest at heart?
“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” says the MIT economist who helped write Obamacare. “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”
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.
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.
seriously!
