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.
But I read a column he wrote that doesn't seem to follow that ideal.
I can't come to trust anything where Microsoft and google are heavily involved.
Scarcity? Or shortage? There is a difference, isn’t there...
:-)
> “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.”
Disagree. What you describe is a false dichotomy.
And it’s not just you. You’re describing the debate as it has been served up to you, as served to most others.
To Baynative: the net-neutrality ‘debate’ is a corner cafe, the only cafe licensed to offer you two types of crap sandwiches, offering a bullcrap sandwich (no net-neutrality) or a chicken-crap sandwich (net-neutrality) on its menu. You’re confused because both menu items are crap and the debate cafe is not offering anything healthy. Well, there are healthy choices but it’s going to take an initiative like the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, promoted and signed into law by Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Yes, Comcast, Centurylink (formerly Qwest, formerly US West, formerly an RBOC of Ma Bell AT&T, etc.) and all the union-controlled, democrat-controlled roadkill of Judge Green’s landmark 1982 decision, all are wrestling to regain their glory days of regional monopoly status. The new fronts of Deep State establishments such as Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc. are also clamoring for market control which is ultimately content control.
What stands in their way are the feeble minds of socialist purveyors of net-neutrality
Hence, a choice of two crap sandwiches.
What would resolve your confusion is when you and a group of like-minded citizens unite to walk out of the cafe into a better establishment and carrying a boot to kick the old cafe’s owner in the rear end should he or she tell you that you can’t leave.
Don’t fall for the false dichotomy of government-regulated versus free-market solutions because neither of those current choices is what it claims to be.
What I seem to be seeing is that the 'googles', 'microsofts' and 'facebooks' are moving fast to be able to not only make money but control lines of thought and communication.
It seems as though (Even reading Agit Pai) that we are heading to a place where we will be charged for data use and bandwidth as customers, website proprietors will be charged to put their content up and the big players at the top will not only control the priority of what we can find, but they will be able to slow a site such as this down to an unbearable speed while Politico and Axios move at hyperspeed.
Am I getting lost in seeing a growing potential for censorship?
If so, does either option protect against thought control?