I might say, it’s like…hotel rooms. Not a universal right or cultural expectation to get one. You know you have to pay. But your choices are limited: Big V, the only hotel, “lets” you choose between a bed and a mattress on milk crates…and tells you it’s wonderful, that having this choice encourages competition And innovation. (Huh?) Because with their ‘profit is all’ mentality, they see guests opting between best bed1 and better bed2. That kind of free world.
And, hey, you have “choice.” You can have the milk crates, bring a blow up mattress, or sleep in your car. Or stay home. We don’t care if you stay home, our orientation is to those opting for best beds.
http://elaw.guide/net-neutrality-for-dummies/
Notice that the examples of big companies that are against NN are not ‘content providers.’ Rather, they stand to profit, too, as their hardware and software allows network control/management.
There was a net neutrality op-ed in the WSJ and they forgot to disclose that it was written by a Comcast lawyer. I wonder how many bushes Comcast is hiding behind?
@romanigypsyeyes I have the same concern about blocked content. I feel like that is missing from most conversations about this subject.
One of my concerns is affordability and the further widening of the technology gap. I was just reading a story about a major city near me where the poorest of residents rely on library and Boys and Girls Clubs for internet access, including to complete homework. What does that mean for a library or non profit who is already struggling with a budget to continue to provide these services if there is some type of pricing structure? This article stated that in one of the poorest neighborhoods in this city, people huddle around the door after hours to get internet service.
Lastly, this seems like such a bipartisan issue, I’m not sure I understand how anyone voted for this. I know who voted for it, I just don’t understand how they could.
I’m pretty sure the problem browsing the web in China is not that China lets the ISPs come up with agreements with content providers and consumers free of government regulation.
“Lastly, this seems like such a bipartisan issue, I’m not sure I understand how anyone voted for this. I know who voted for it, I just don’t understand how they could.”
Exactly. Can anyone make a good case for this? I don’t get it.
Aren’t we basically going back to the internet rules we followed from 1996-2014?
Also with the current rules, don’t we see Twitter, Facebook, You Tube and others blocking people/content.
and for the issues that Greenwitch brought up, those cases she listed were resolved with federal regulators, state regulators or the media getting involved.
Twitter and FB have blocked some offensive posters. But that’s case by case.
Even with NN, Verizon was shown to be slowing speeds at some hours, in my close area, those users subscribed at lower-speed packages.
The big carriers claim the network can be overburdened and it’s necessary to restrict speeds for less critical services. at some points. (Ensuring, eg, enough capacity for govt and civil operations, emergencies, etc.) But the networks were originally built into a glut that went well over anticipated needs and new developments continue to reduce the bits and bytes of what traffic really is, make it more efficient.
In an early 2016 ELAW article about NN, they cite Cisco, IBM, Juniper, and Ericsson as opponents. Of course.
What do I really think? Unfortunately, that the people will come to accept, as they do many things. A shame, but. Ya know, on Fios, I already couldn’t get certain channels I wanted (including On Demand,) without upgrading the pckage, paying more. I did walk with my feet.
Nope. I see no reason why tax rates have anything to do with whether ISPs are common carriers.
Of COURSE content providers want net neutrality. The first thing ISPs will do is start going after content providers. Google and Netflix don’t want to have to pay bribes to Comcast, but that’s what Comcast will soon be asking for. “Do you want your site to load fast? That’ll be fifty million dollars.”
And I’m quite certain that the problem in China is precisely that Chinese people using the Internet don’t get to visit the sites they want to visit. Why would we want anyone else but users (ourselves) to choose which sites we visit? I don’t want my ISP to block or throttle my surfing. I don’t want Comcast to tell me the Washington Post will load at a snail’s pace but the New York Times and Fox News will spring instantly to my screen.
Can you assure me that under this regulation I will be able to buy unlimited browsing at any price? No, you cannot.
I’m still waiting for true freedom in cable and not having to pay for channels i don’t want like ESPN. I didn’t want to pay the $6 a month for ESPN 5 years ago when i cut cable.