Just a bit of both Dirk. Just like the rest of us.
At first glance, Net Neutrality sounds good and all will be as it is now. But reading further into it, it begins to sound nefarious. Kind of like the attempted FCC neutrality law. It's a means to shut up dissension.
I like the fact that it didn't work then, but the Proggies are gong back to the 'ol playbook (Rules for Radicals) after giving it a rest.
And people are a whole lot dumber than they were twenty years ago...it may work this time around. To the detriment of all.
Beware the man who has one gun, he probably knows how to use it.
Currently, it is legal for an ISP (cable company, telco, etc) to monitor Internet traffic that is coming to you and treat different data differently. They can differentiate between say, email, the web and streaming video and "throttle" one and not the other, so you still get your emails and can surf the web, but they restrict your bandwidth when it comes to watching Netflix. That's part one, and it's bad enough, but here's part two… the ISP can legally go to Netflix and tell them "we'll stop throttling your service and give your customers what they are paying for, but you have to pay us to have us do it."
Sound farfetched? Nope, it really happened last year:
For the last several months, Comcast Internet customers have complained about a drop in quality of the Netflix streams being delivered to their homes, and Netflix’s own data showed a massive decline in connection speeds starting in October. But today, the two companies announced they have reached a “mutually beneficial” agreement that will hopefully turn that trend around. (Netflix Agrees To Pay Comcast To End Slowdown)
Net neutrality is a policy that would prevent such shenanigans, by saying that the Internet is a utility (and a monopolistic one, at that, in most areas) and an ISP has to treat data as data, and not pick and choose what it delivers based on who is paying them.
Last Edit: Feb 4, 2015 18:37:49 GMT -6 by adjensen
Hernando's Hideaway Plank Owner America's best radio station: wfmu.org | My Reality Remix topics blog: Here
That's one way to look at it, but digging deeper you will see that it also allows the Gov't to shut down what they want, regardless of who is in the WH. I don't like that idea at all.
Beware the man who has one gun, he probably knows how to use it.
That's one way to look at it, but digging deeper you will see that it also allows the Gov't to shut down what they want, regardless of who is in the WH. I don't like that idea at all.
It'd be just desserts if the left got what it wanted, and a GOP administration silenced them.
I thought by the title, you were telling us about it. Now I still gotta go read the whole silly thing to see where the whammy is? fc/oops
After all, we live in the times where black is white and up is really down...when it isn't up or sideways or even diagonal, occasionally.
Adj has it dead on for the official 'PC World' definition of Net Neutrality as I've read it over the years. However...black is white, so neutrality probably means the opposite and I fully expect there to BE some of that too. Somewhere in all that, and likely in legalese it takes a law degree to even recognize among the hash and trash. Its the Washington Way.
(Marks the second weekend in April as the next available "free time" thingy where such research can be done. hehe)