I will be honest, I don't quite understand net neutrality. Every time I think I do I find out I don't.
A might confused myself.
We have to regulate it to make it free.
“On December 14, the FCC voted in a 3-2 decision to repeal the net neutrality legislation put in place by the Obama administration.”
That’s all you need to know. Anything and everything implemented by Klownie the Kenyan is bad. So anything reversed is good for America, the world and the universe.
As I understand it, Net Neutrality is all about forced subsidy. Net Neutrality fans want for others to pay for their streaming. John Oliver and Al Franken are for Net Neutrality. That should tell us something.
It's all about people wanting others to pay for their access...gimme, gimme, gimme, or as James Hetfield would say...
Federal legislation is always named the opposite of what it does. The Affordable Care Act, for instance.
“Net neutrality” is “The Fairness Doctrine” recycled to the Interwebls.
I understand that gubmint screws up pretty much anything it touches.
It has nothing to do w internet speed.
It sets up a regulatory body which will eventually control the message.
The fake news battle is exactly what they had in mind.
Except they want prison time for non-correct news
Don’t feel bad, most people don’t understand it including me, that’s what makes it so ripe for mischief by politicians.
Look at it this way. We didn’t have it before Obama and we were doing fine. Just the government sticking its nose in another business for no reason.
Glad to see another Obama idea ........kicked to the roadside.
I wasn’t for NN when it was proposed (I prefer free market) and I’m glad to see this being
dismissed.
Let the market take it’s natural course. Let the Gov., Isp’s,, and others go back to respecting the privacy of the paying public. Liberals will have to find another scheme to build files on people private information.
Please enough with the Boo-hooing of slow access to medical records and the such. The Cloud and AI with personal information is a recipe for disaster, unless of Course.....YOUR with HER (Agenda).
Winning.
I stopped trying to understand it. If it effects me directly, that’s when I will deal with it. My internet footprint is very small compared to most people’s. I don’t do Facebook or Twitter, so we’ll see what does or does not happen.
I’m not going to fret about it.
I think some people were going nuts after Pres. Trump authorized a change. Most were upset simply because the ‘change’ was something recent, implemented by their idol, Obama. Around 2009, I think. So ‘obviously’ if Trump was removing that change, it has to be bad, if not downright horrible.
For me, it was a two level approach to understanding it.
Step One: Who is for it, and who is against it? On nearly any issue, when all the leftists line up on one side, it is uniformly going to be a bad proposition for the individual, the country, and the world.
Step Two: Who benefits and who doesn’t? Leftists like to say the “Working Man” benefits from Net Neutrality. When I hear that, I run the other way. Fast. In. this case, it is Thomas Sowell’s admonition to avoid one stage thinking. When the surface is scratched and you look at the next level, it boils down to this: If a carrier cannot differentiate themselves from their competition by increasing their network infrastructure and capability because their competition can use their infrastructure, then WHY WOULD THEY IMPROVE THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE? The simple answer is...they won’t. And if they don’t...who will?
You have one guess to figure out who is going to do it if the carriers don’t. And that entity that will do it is well known for waste, corruption, poor service, and inefficiency. You get one more guess to figure out where that entity will get their money from, and who decides what is done with it.
The obverse side of it is that if a carrier CAN get a business advantage by improving their infrastructure, then they will, and a rising tide will lift all boats. It is competition that does that. And they do that by improving their infrastructure so they can reach more customers with cell service and internet access by extending it in those directions. People who had poor access to cell service and the internet will be brought on board, because someone can make money doing it.
Soros is behind this “net neutrality” lie. It’s just more comunist/marxist freedom robbing oppression.
One of the things soros, Obama, and Zuckerberg wanted to do was cripple the ISPs so that Facebook , google etc all marxist companies could censor conservatives more effectively and it was working. No one could complain to the ISPs. Facebook , google , youtube ,amazon, would have a complete monopoly.
CNN, Ny times etc. , Google , twitter,facebook, Soros, Obama etc. all the communists are for “net neutrality” . That should tell you all you need to know.
The Internet was free for 20 years until 1915 when obama and Soros imposed the 400 pages of government regulations called “net neutrality”.
The repeal of net neutrality would turn internet service providers into gatekeepers – allowing them to put profits over consumers while controlling what we see, what we do, and what we say online,”
And only Facebook, Google, and Twitter should be allowed to do that.
It’s simple actually - net neutrality was more of the standard leftist “fairness” tripe.
The fact is - like everything else in life, if you want more, if you want better, you should be willing to pay for it.
Imagine a “restaurant neutrality” bill where restaurants can no longer offer prime rib for a higher price and ground chuck at a lower price - that’s not fair; everyone should get the same thing at the same price - right? But of course like everything the left touts in terms of fairness, what will simply happen is that NO ONE will get prime rib anymore. Why? If a restaurant is being FORCED to provide a product, they’re going to provide the cheapest thing they can get away with. Heck, in the “planned economy”, eventually, we might be ecstatic to even get ground chuck.
The bottom line: net neutrality was an innovation killer; by not allowing companies to offer premium products - for a premium price, there would less and less incentive to make better and faster internet widgets.
The irony? While the leftists howl about the rich internet companies getting richer, we all benefit in the end. How? Simple. I may not be able to afford this years fancy new product, but in s few years - when the richest of us are paying for the latest new thing, the older things inevitably fall in price. It’s one of the great benefits of a free market.
So we’ll soon see an article from MJ FRANKLIN on how toll express lanes on highways are bad. And another one on how tolls for roads and bridges should be the same for big trucks as for cars.
Hey MJ, the 1930s called. They want their regulations back.
Apparently, MJ stands for Moron Juvenile.
“Under net neutrality, the internet functions as a one-lane highway — everyone and everything flows at the same rate, on the same path (more or less). Every site, no matter how big or small, was given equal access.”
I’ve been hearing about this whole ‘net neutrality’ thing for well over a year now (two years?), and I still don’t get it....
Net Neutrality would have kept the current hierarchy (Facebook, Google, Amazon) in place, and limit the ability of companies to create new ways to access the Internet.
If some service wants to provide high speed Internet for everything except Netflix (which uses up an ungodly amount of total Internet bandwidth) and charge accordingly, good on them. There are enough ways to ge to the Internet (DSL, cable, satellite, cell towers, etc.) that there can be genuine competition.
I don’t get to worked up on monopolies over movie viewing. The ability to transact commerce, look for work and send email will continue to be okay.
The Internet has not been broken in this way. We don’t need the government to monitor the ISPs to “fix it”.