The government does not become the owner/manager of the resource, it requires that the owner/manager not pick said winners and losers by mandating neutrality.
While I understand some people having the perspective that less government regulation is a good thing, I donât see many compelling arguments for why a rule mandating that all Internet data be treated equally by ISPâs is a bad thing.
What is going to happen to the porn?
Thats the real concern here. Its no big deal for the bigwigs that control our gubmint, but if regular Joes whoâs wives see their credit card statements have to start paying for porn again its going to be an economic catastrophe. And a direct attack on the institution of marriage. Way worse than letting gays get hitched.
I think your picket sign just wrote itself.
The government doesnât pick winners and losers first hand, but puts an arbitrary restriction on the market that favors some and hurts others.
Yeah, Iâm starting to get a rudimentary understanding here.
Scott A. Johnson D.C.
Do you have a specific example?
âThank you for choosing Comcast. Your âMovie internetâ package with Netflix, Youtube and Hulu costs 15,99$ a month. Would you like to upgrade to our âRegular pornâ package with Pornhub for just another 8,99$ a month? Weâve also got a nice choice of niche packages for people withâŠspecific tastesâ
What is arbitrary about mandating that everyone be treated equal? Thatâs the opposite of arbitrariness - equality is the remedy to arbitrariness.
But when you stop people from arbitrarily jacking up prices on people youâre actually taking away their right to choose to not arbitrarily jack up prices on their own.
Because fuck logic.
There is a bit of a difference between treating people and companies equally vs types internet traffic.
Ok. And?
Just one? Chevy Volt.
Please forgive my ignorance, I must have missed this one. Googleâs also not being helpful.
Been on the fence about this for a while now. Thought this was compelling (for Twitter anywayâŠ)
That was really good. Thanks for posting.
@anon50325502
Good find.
At least we can find solace in the fact that governments would never actually read all internet communications, use facial recognition combo of driver license photo/road intersection cameras, thumbprint data base on driver licenses, a nationwide individual identity number, or support the move to cashless societies.
/s/
Obviously I donât know a lot about this, but just a thought. Iâve read several comments to this effect.
We have a lot of people predicting predatory practices by internet service providers. Maybe all of this attention will prevent that from happening. Can you imagine the public outcry, PR nightmare if they started changing their price structure? Sort of a reverse self-fulfilling prophecy.
Also, the following quote is from a pro- change editorial, in the WSJ this week. Notice the last paragraph about Google. I added the bold type to that part. Thoughts?
WSJ Editorial Begin -
"Bans on throttling content may poll well, but the regulations have created uncertainty about what the FCC would or wouldnât allow. This has throttled investment. Price discrimination and paid prioritization are used by many businesses. Netflix charges higher prices to subscribers who stream content on multiple devices. Has this made the internet less free?
Mr. Paiâs rules would require that broadband providers disclose discriminatory practices. Thus cable companies would have to be transparent if they throttle content when users reach a data cap or if they speed up live sports programming. Consumers can choose broadband providers and plans accordingly. The Federal Trade Commission will have authority to police predatory and monopolistic practices, as it had prior to Mr. Wheelerâs power grab.
Mr. Paiâs net-neutrality rollback will also support growth in content. Both content producers and consumers will benefit from increased investment in faster wireless and fiber technology. Apple is pouring $1 billion into original content to compete with Amazon, Netflix and YouTube.
Disney is buying the 21st Century Fox assets to compete with Netflix and other streaming services, build leverage with cable companies and establish a global footprint. Netflix has more than 47 million international subscribers and streams in nearly every country. Fox (which shares the Murdoch familyâs ownership with our parent company, News Corp.) will keep its news and main sports channels, which can offer âliveâ content to consumers. The antitrust concerns should be negligible.
Consumers will also benefit from the slow breakdown of the cable monopoly as they customize âbundlesâ like Hulu or a Disney stream that may cost less. Americans will also enjoy new distribution options, which could have been barred by the net-neutrality rules.
This week T-Mobile announced its acquisition of Layer3 TV, a Denver startup that streams high-definition channels online and will compete with AT&Tâs DirecTV Now. Verizon Wireless last month said it will start delivering high-speed broadband to homes over its wireless network late next year. Google and AT&T are experimenting with similar services that will be cheaper than digging dirt to lay cable. This could be a boon for rural America.
By the way, Google has vigorously promoted net neutrality in theory but less in practice. While Google says it remains âcommitted to the net neutrality policies,â the search engine uses opaque algorithms to prioritize and discriminate against content, sometimes in ways that undercut competitors. Net neutrality for thee, but not me. Google ought to be transparent about its practices.