So, let's hear it; exactly how does Net Neutrality tell you which streaming services to choose? Why don't you explain it, including citations from the actual law.
the government is not controlling the network with net neutrality, they are just telling the cable companies that can artificially slow down their competitions services kinda like the government telling ISP's they can't read your email or other private stuff - but guessing that rule you like now for things like the government requiring they get a key (backdoor) to all encryption, that I would agree should never happen, ironically many on the right want that, but that is another topic
Google already reads all of your emails, have you noticed that you now have 3 preprogrammed choices to reply to what’s in your inbox? Also, Google, Facebook, ect. give preference to paying customers so they show up first on the search results page. No different then ISP’s providing better/faster service to people who are willing to pay more for it. Think of it as first class seats in a plane. Those seats are actually subsidizing the coach seats in the back and making them cheaper. I’m relieved that the “Net neutrality” (a BS focus tested name to make it sound so nice to idiots) is being scrubbed by Trump. Having government get their tentacles in the private sector is a 100% sure way to F it up for everyone, and hurt those at the bottom the most. All while getting the poor class lemmings to fall for it.
Ahh I see your attempted trick here. I put nothing in quotes and we both agree Greenspan said he should have regulated banks. I guess you are disagreeing that banks were forced by government to make subprime loans. At least be honest and don't resort to these cheap theatrics. We could debate that fact and I have many times before but that's not the subject of this thread. Government getting involved where it shouldn't and the unintended consequences of that is the subject. The unitended consequences of forcing banks to make subprime loans was the creation of very creative ways by banks to lay these loans off on others and Greenspan chose not to regulate that. What will companies that suddenly have to conform to band width regulations come up with to counteract that is the question and will that lead to another mess like with the banks and more regulations like Greenspan says he should have done? Why not just leave well enough alone and keep the government out altogether.
It isn't necessary to prove anything when you have deep state bureaucrats breaking the laws by leaking false information to the media that keeps a president from doing his job. That should scare the crap out of any RATIONAL person. But if you aren't rational, then I won't waste anymore of my time. Steve
with a cable company, everyone is a paying customer, they just want to charge you more based on the sites you visit to use the data you ALREADY paid for I am fine with cable companies selling different tiers, not slowing down traffic based on the sites i visit be like buying first class on a plane and they giving you a regular seat cause you were connecting to a carrier they did not like on the next flight I pay for 100Down, 20Up... I want that for ANY site I visit.... I already paid for it
In other words, you haven't the faintest idea what Net Neutrality even is, and you're trying to distract from that by using personal attacks. Ignored.
I know exactly what the "net neutrality" legislation is. You don't know what is behind it, is the problem. Even the real definition of net neutrality is hands off. Steve
Ri Right, net neutrality should mean the government remains neutral. Instead it means government picks winners and losers and apportions limited resources as it sees fit.
This means that Facebook, Google, YouTube, netflix and other bandwith hogs might have to pay for the amount of bandwidth they use and startups will have an easier time getting access to an audience. Competition is always good for the consumer.
It just seems like this guy would not want to repeal net neutrality. Who is repealing it, exactly? Who introduced the bill to repeal net neutrality? Ajit Pai was appointed by Trump to head the FCC. This is Pai's proposal: I'm confused where all the blame lies and what is bad about this change? I guess we are saying that the regulations are keeping the speeds all the same and forcing equality or something?
A law that forces companies to have have the hardware to provide full bandwidth coverage for all of their clients at any given moment increases the cost of production of service. What does this do to the price of the service?
Why would we fix something that ain't broke? The internet is amazing, innovative, relatively cheap, and lucrative for providers. ' Why would we screw with it?