Quote:
Originally Posted by Cybercowboy
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.
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. |
I'll admit that I am so ignorant on this subject that I haven't a clue as to if it is good or bad for me as a consumer.
Can you tell me if it is good or bad?
What I see through the forest is that now, ISP's are free to bundle "packages", like the shopping package, or the information package, a lot like cable and satellite companies do, and charge you for segments of the internet.
It would seem that it will not be "free" anymore. Ergo bad for the consumer.
Am I off the mark on this view?