It's certainly not censorship.
The imagine scenario, of an ISP slowing access to youtube or something, is because youtube uses a huge amount of bandwidth and pays for none of it.
If that's so, why hasn't it happened already? Net neutrality can't be ditched because we've never had it. The non-net-neutrality environment is what has led to today's internet.In the US, if I'm not mistaken ISPs are generally considered common carriers, which means they are not responsible for the content transmitted on their lines because they are supposed to be ignorant of it. Filtering or access tiers breaks this.
If net neutrality is ditched, essentially the major content providers and ISPs will collude and turn the internet into what TV is today. ISPs will be able to extort money from sites, and the independent wackiness of the internet will disappear.
I think getting the government involved in telling companies how to run the internet would be much, much worse.
Any figures on just how many people don't have any choice?You are making the assumption that people have choices in their ISPs. Many areas are stuck with either random dialup services, or their cable company.
Well, gee, if we got the government out of that then there would be less monopolies, huh? I don't see how you proving government intervention in the market is bad makes the case for more government intervention. I mean, what you linked to is a clear reason to keep the government out of the internet.So on the federal, state and local level, government is all over the internet, either preserving or creating local monopolies.
Because the government screws thing up.
Especially, especially, for an imagined problem like net neutrality.
And your second link is eleven years old.
Oh, and this isn't a bill, it's being imposed without any legislation by the FCC.
CR
Bookmarks