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.
It would allow the government more power to regulate (in sketchy ways) the Internet, a modern-day stronghold of free speech.
Furthermore, considering that the Republicans control all three branches in DC (though not the courts, but they can change that later on, maybe) and now have control over the FCC, why would they want Donald Trump, the one they keep calling "Nazi", "Fascist", and "Hitler" to regulate the Internet.
That is about as nuts as them asking the guy they call "Hitler" to take more guns away from the public.
It would allow the government more power to regulate (in sketchy ways) the Internet, a modern-day stronghold of free speech.
Furthermore, considering that the Republicans control all three branches in DC (though not the courts, but they can change that later on, maybe) and now have control over the FCC, why would they want Donald Trump, the one they keep calling "Nazi", "Fascist", and "Hitler" to regulate the Internet.
That is about as nuts as them asking the guy they call "Hitler" to take more guns away from the public.
Do you even know what net neutrality is? Please read up on it. It does NOTHING to curtail free speech.
Yeah the threat to free speech comes from the ISPs. Likely driven more by economics than the thought content but effectively a tight block to some sources.
It would allow the government more power to regulate (in sketchy ways) the Internet, a modern-day stronghold of free speech.
Furthermore, considering that the Republicans control all three branches in DC (though not the courts, but they can change that later on, maybe) and now have control over the FCC, why would they want Donald Trump, the one they keep calling "Nazi", "Fascist", and "Hitler" to regulate the Internet.
That is about as nuts as them asking the guy they call "Hitler" to take more guns away from the public.
Wow, just wow.
The logic begins with a false premise and is twisted like a pretzel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
Better question, why are people against it when they don't even understand what it is?
Net neutrality is supposed to act as a balancing act across the internet, making the information equally available to all without companies throttling down or otherwise affecting a pool of users they (the companies) target.
If the internet isn't owned by any one or group of companies, and is supposedly global information sharing, why would I want to be open to the possibility of not being able to connect to the internet in the way the next person does? I think the internet works fine now. Certain sites ALL have to pay for while others are free, but it's the same for all users.
Going against net neutrality is simply giving power to specific companies to make more profit and/or effect users as they see fit. So yeah, I support the concept.
net neutrality stops ISPs from being able to charge more to access certain sites, or to charge businesses to have access at all. The argument against net neutrality is that ISPs should not be able to charge for specific websites, otherwise they could turn the internet into a glorified subscription service.
The arguments for it are the fact that it's estimated netflix could use up to 75% of internet bandwidth thus it's appropriate to charge people more to use that service or make netflix pay the ISP directly to have access based on how much bandwidth is used.
Net neutrality is akin to lumping all the TV channels together in one package, whereas no net neutrality would be something closer to ala carte.
I'd worry more about censorship from google and facebook to be honest. The bigger a company gets the more they lawyer up and do things to cover their butts and remain politically correct. Finding alternatives to these giants becomes the issue. Frankly as long as you cover your paper trail with a VPN, your ISP doesn't care much what you do as long as you stay under your bandwidth cap.
In theory no net neutrality could be a way to cheapen up internet access for people who don't use a lot of bandwidth by making big services like netflix pay instead of charging the end users. In practice, it probably won't work that way, and netflix will raise prices to compensate.
A lot of ISPs in 2017 jacked up the price of their cheapest service. Mediacom did and I'm still on a grandfathered plan and pay $40/month. The lowest plans are now I believe $60 or $70. I doubt they would lower prices if they got google, facebook, and netflix to throw in extra in subscription fees to "grant access" to these sites.
This all wouldn't be that big a deal if the cable providers didn't monopolize service in so many towns around the US. We happen to have 2 different cable providers in my town but the other one is equally expensive.
Last edited by sholomar; 02-27-2018 at 06:15 PM..
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.
