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.
Putting Larry, Moe, and Curly in charge of defining what "equal access" means, how it is enforced, who enforces it, what the standards are to determine what is "equal" and what is not. The massive bureaucracy and incredible costs it will impose to solve a problem that
DOES NOT EXIST.
That's a deflection, specifically what do you see wrong with the three things I've outlined. This has worked quite well for almost 20 years now.
The only thing eliminating net neutrality would do is give already rich and dysfunctional ISPs another humongous revenue source. It would become impossible to start a successful internet-based company without a rich sponsor. This hurts consumer choice.
The internet would inevitably become like television, where websites run collectively in "channels" who bargain with ISPs and pay their huge fees. Every successful website would be part of a larger company, kind of how sites like Yahoo or ESPN are large collections of content that run under one banner. That sounds alright, except your favorite sports blog might not get picked up by a channel, lose most of its readers, and go under.
You people have bitten the propaganda and now regurgitate it back as if the thoughts were your own.
The internet is just fine. It does not need government intervention. These same arguments for net neutrality have been repeated for years and, in all that time, none of these scare stories have come true.
Because it's been operating under the principals of NN since the beginning. Had that not happened at the start we certainly would not be where we are at now. If the ISP's and specifically the cable companies had seen what was coming down the pipe it would have drastically altered how the internet evolved. They have lost control of the content being delivered, when you visit CD here they don't get a piece of the pie.
This is more liberal horsepoop. If you feel that your internet provider won't let you get access to a mom and pop website versus those evil corporate websites, switch your internet provider. I have three options where I live for broadband. Coax Cable, Verizon Fios, and 4G.
Consider yourself lucky. In my area, it's Comcast, 4G, or ancient DSL. Not everywhere is like Dallas. Or, we can be like my wife's country, and have around 10 different ISPs to pick from.
Because it's been operating under the principals of NN since the beginning. Had that not happened at the start we certainly would not be where we are at now. If the ISP's and specifically the cable companies had seen what was coming down the pipe it would have drastically altered how the internet evolved. They have lost control of the content being delivered, when you visit CD here they don't get a piece of the pie.
And the FCC isn't even involved. So what has happened recently that requires that the government take action?
These exact same arguments were made years ago when Net Neutrality was first proposed. It's just a rehash. The threats that you lay out are not part of reality.
And the FCC isn't even involved. So what has happened recently that requires that the government take action?
The ISP's want to provide "fast lanes" that content providers will pay for. If they have no intention of doing that what is their concern?
Quote:
These exact same arguments were made years ago when Net Neutrality was first proposed.
What has been proposed is formal adoption of these rules which they have been voluntarily adhering too. The ISP's have been kept at bay with the threat of formal adoption.
And the FCC isn't even involved. So what has happened recently that requires that the government take action?
These exact same arguments were made years ago when Net Neutrality was first proposed. It's just a rehash. The threats that you lay out are not part of reality.
Actually its became an issue recently because the "threats you lay out are not part of reality" started to actually occur. The FCC lost a court case some time ago on this, and some of the larger companies started throttling netflix in order to get more money out of them for example.
The quality of network you paid for at your end, was reduced in order for them to get more out of netflix.
I swear this is the second thread about this, and the sheer ignorance of so many posters is mind boggling. They try and turn it into a republican vs democrat issue when it isnt. They try and say the government is trying to control the internet, when its really about keeping the internet we have instead of making it worse.
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.
