Quote:
Originally Posted by TxAg
Right back at you.
|
You can't even define Net Neutrality because it has, literally, no legal meaning. You are defending FCC Title II regulation of ISP's and backbone providers. That's what you are defending. Everything else is marketing, and if only you'd step back and look who was pushing this thing perhaps you could see the forest through the trees.
Watch the video at this link, a former FCC chairman debating your same talking points being mouthed by an MSNBC shill.
Then read this, including this gem.
Quote:
|
The results have been bad for consumers. The first negative consumer impact is less infrastructure investment. The top complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their ISP is doing things like blocking content; it’s that they don’t have enough access and competition. Ironically, Title II has made that concern even worse by reducing investment in building and maintaining high-speed networks. In the two years of the Title II era, broadband network investment declined by $3.6 billion—or more than 5%. Notably, this is the first time that such investment has declined outside of a recession in the Internet era.
|
You've been lied to. "Net Neutrality" is a buzzword, a slogan. It has nothing legal or factual. It didn't magically make ISP's unable to offer tiered service or force them to treat every IP packet identically. It simply put a 1934 law made to regulate a monopoly (Ma Bell) on ISP's because
then the government friggin' owned them. They couldn't say boo without filling out a bunch of paperwork, and the .gov could take away their "broadcast license" on a whim. That's it. That's what you are defending using dial-up phone analogies from 1997.