nope obama handing over the keys to the internet to a globalist, pro censorship organization was scary!
Dutch is a Russian bot
Serious Q: Can anyone explain to me how killing net neutrality is a good thing? I'm a fairly pro free-market kinda guy, but the Internet seems like a public utility to me.
Cons of net neutrality regulation
- Regulation imposing net neutrality would limit new business ideas and concepts and could be considered against free market rules.
- Sponsored content and “pay-to-play” schemes may go against the net neutrality spirit, but they can help companies improve the overall service they offer. Heavier internet users may be charged more. With that extra money ISPs could increase the bandwith for all internet users.
- Thanks to sponsorships some mobile telecom operators may offer free internet access to some contents. This may enable those who don’t have data contracts on their smartphones to surf some areas in the internet for free. Similarly, it would reduce the consumption of other users’ data allotments.
- Regulation for net neutrality may limit the tools of governments and ISPs to fight against online “piracy”. Material infringing copyright laws will be easilty shared using P2P software. ISPs or governments won't be able to block or filter these contents, if net neutrality is fully respeced. Similarly net neutrality rules make more difficult to monitor and control controversial adult content.
- Some defenders of net neutrality question government intervention. For them it should emerge organically or naturally but not imposed through laws.
If the nightmare scenarios outlined by anti obamacare supports plays out then laws can be changed. I
If the nightmare scenarios outlined by pro net neutrality supports plays out then laws can be changed. I doubt Comcast and Verizon are rubbing their hands together imagining how they can ruin the internet.
I bet it isn't going to be 1/10th as bad as people are imagining it will be. But still, ideologically, I'm strongly in favor of net neutrality.
Bet I'll hardly notice a difference.
I highly highly doubt any of what you're saying comes true. Highly.I think it won't fall far from expectations. It'll happen over time; at first you don't notice anything. Then it's the Internet triple play; Web Browsing, Streaming, and Gaming. Then you'll go look for your favorite blogging or content specific news site(say, Slashdot.org), and realize you can't get to it. After a few months of clicking it randomly to see if it comes back up, it auto-routes you to tech.bing.com instead.
The potential for how bad this could be, I think is actually understated in main stream society.
Yeah, the path to that is there, right until they go down that path, then the law changes because people aren't cool with being blocked for political or commercial reasons from going to the sites they want to go to. And the second someone tries to go to their favorite echo chamber but gets redirected to the enemy echo chamber it's going to be armed rebellion.We'll see man. But the way the legislation is looking now, all of it can. The path to all of that is there.
I'm not cool with that.
ooh really?Yeah, the path to that is there, right until they go down that path, then the law changes because people aren't cool with being blocked for political or commercial reasons from going to the sites they want to go to. And the second someone tries to go to their favorite echo chamber but gets redirected to the enemy echo chamber it's going to be armed rebellion.
lmfaoI highly highly doubt any of what you're saying comes true. Highly.
I'm sure Comcast will make clear that they will not be blocking content, will not be re-routing users. The second that starts happening legislation will pass to make it illegal to do that. I'm not skurred.