As opposed to the Fox News logic exhibited in this thread, in which the idea of regulation on industries is literally presented as a Soviet five-year central plan for the economy. Riiiiiight. That’s clear thinking there.
Bar-B-Q, beer and pecan pie is totally valid, but that’s pretty much it.
How many times has it been asked to the anti-NN folks to provide one thing that would improve without NN.
There was one response that made a little sense - More research into wifi. That could happen when everything else goes right in the toilet.
Other than that, nothing. Oh, except less regulation is better and it will be moderated by the (non-existent) market.
Anti-NN don’t give one god damn about the cost for access and I DO THINK they would be happy to see large corporations decide what people have access to. That’s what it’s about isn’t it.
Bricker - the ‘Leftists agenda’ is nothing more than the government should be fair to everyone. Regardless of their skin color, political beliefs, sex, or religious affiliation. You’re a lawyer, it’s right there in the constitution. You should know this.
Crickets.
Why should the government regulate the internet in the first place?
To prevent corporations from acting as gatekeepers to what content subscribers are able to access.
Well, then one could discount the rest of your post as it is indeed the opposite of what you are going for there.
When traffic is not treated the same, new Internet businesses will be more likely to fail. Leading to less choices for consumers. (And less new jobs one should point out).
(Short video from the BBC)
The counter that Internet providers would then stop working on improving speeds or infrastructure is the item that in reality has less support because most of the industry continued to grow and improve.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-fcc-says-net-neutrality-cripples-investment-thats-not-true/
Leading then one to say that the ones pushing the new-speak in reality are your sources of information.
It’s the old argument. The right fears government domination. The left fears corporate domination. Neither side is right all the time. But righties can’t admit, for God knows what reason, that this might be that instance where the left has it, er, right.
One thing that puzzles me, ignorant as I am about the functioning of the net as a global entity. How does this decision affect international traffic?
Ever heard of the Potato Famine? Absolute belief in Adam Smith’s theories are what lead to over 1 million people in Ireland dying of hunger and disease. :dubious:
Can we please stop hearing that shit? Net neutrality does not “regulate the internet”. It regulates the gateway operators (ISPs), in order to require them to provide balanced, open access to the internet. That kind of regulation is about as apposite to “regulating the internet” as you can get.
The U.S. will be interpreted as damaged, and traffic will route around it.
Me too.
But “appealing to the better natures,” of window breakers, and remonstrating with them as to the social cost and impact of the broken windows doesn’t work. So then you guys blame the rich, and tell each other how awful rich people are, which doesn’t save the windows either.
BWAHAHAHA!!!
Be fair to everyone that precisely and completely agrees with them, sure.
But when the ACLU speaker tries to speak: the scope of the "fairness,’ is quickly exposed.
How is that a concern of the government’s?
Why isn’t promoting the general welfare as it deals with interstate commerce a concern of the government’s?
Repeating the question:
What is it that you think is being “exposed” here? Is this the anti-free-speech committee of the Democratic Party doing all the shouting? And this ACLU that is being so ruthlessly suppressed here – are they lackeys of the left or the right? Help me out here, because there seems to be some considerable confusion on that score.
Well, is that not the answer though? We ask what good eliminating net neutrality will be, and the answer is “you stupid lefties”.
I’m pretty sure it has a better record than supply-side economics.
So much for logic then by reaching for a fallacy to make a “point”
And no, there has not been a good reply to what the BBC or Wired reported on the issue.
Promoting the general welfare doesn’t mean what you think it does. It most certainly doesn’t mean whatever damn fool idea that pops into someone’s head, such as that they have some sort of “right” to internet access.