This is a bad article, and is obvious propaganda for the ISPs. One, it's 8 years old, which means it's missing newer info; and two, it's full of false statements, half-truths, lies of omission, and misrepresentations. It's a long article and I really don't feel like taking the enormous amount of time required to refute all that nonsense, but I will re-post a comment I made in another similar thread a little while back that is just as relevant here (another thread started by you, I might add)... If you want more info and details, you can also search for my posts in this thread (which should also be mostly relevant here): http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...8097-net-neutrality-passed-now-how-about.html
I don't think you understand. In this context, "neutral" means that everything has to be treated equally. The whole point of net neutrality is to prevent abuse by the ISPs. - - - Updated - - - The only people who think net neutrality is stupid, are those who don't understand what it is - like you, for example.
No, you don't get the point. The government isn't stifling free speech or the free exchange of information. The entire purpose of net neutrality is to prevent the ISPs from stifling free speech or the free exchange of information.
Government agencies tend to have mission creep to justify their continued existence. The FCC protecting consumers is just the selling point. Ultimately what the FCC will eventually do is protect some rent-seekers at the expense of rent-payers. I support regulation of the internet so I am fine with at least that aspect of it, but fully expect that the eventual policies down the road will be more about protecting one company at the expense of another. The free speech thing is a red-herring, but I do acknowledge that there is an ulterior motive here.
Why do you so badly want Comcast to censor the internet? And why do you keep claiming laws that prevent censorship are censorship? If it's not a monopoly, then why do I have a choice of a single broadband ISP? I'm leaving out satellite as an option, of course, as that would cost an obscene amount. Point is, most people only have two realistic choices, making it very close to a monopoly for everyone. And Net Neutrality has been the law for over 6 months now. None of your calamities have happened, or show any sign of happening. How long will it take before you admit your fears were proven to be unjustified?
In actual practice, no. The only thing the law can guarantee is to make sure some things are treated neutral in some situations. That is not true neutrality. It could even result in less neutrality, or a different type of inequality that is worse than the inequality that exists now. To say it a different way, laws designed to stop discrimination can themselves be used to discriminate. The laws themselves are only going to be as just as the people who are entrusted to apply them. And how are we going to prevent abuse by regulators and specific public officials who are enforcing these laws?
Comcast is not censoring the internet, and they never intended to. Get educated. http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-vs-netflix-is-this-really-about-net-neutrality/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gene-marks/why-net-neutrality-is-a-d_b_5357844.html I have 4 ISP choices, plus multiple satellite based options. Satellite is not any more expensive than the others. In fact, that's what I selected. Because the FCC regulating the internet is a bad idea, but no "badness" has occurred immediately, that does not make it a good idea. The govt and the meddlers work methodically and opportunistically and icnrementally, in time you will deeply regret supporting "net neutrality".
