Loved by Lawyers and DHS Agents alike!
That really sucks about Net Neutrality going down...you are correct that the .gov would have to regulate the 'net more, but I would rather have them do it then let the telco's doing it. Not having Net Neutrality is basically giving the telco's free reign to jack up access prices. Also, they can regulate what services you use, for example VOIP. If you are using Verizon DSL but are using AT&T's VOIP service, Verizon can make your VOIP packets 'take the long way' and therefore degrade your VOIP service...but if you use Verizon's VOIP it'll be much better because they will give those packet's priority...and when big companies can alter my choices like that it gives me a bad taste in my mouth...having Net Neutrality would not allow the telco's to regulate the quality or hinder my choice of services I use, be it VOIP or 'net access or anything else. I'm usually very against the .gov from regulating things unless it's necessary, but I believe that the telco's have such an ogipoly going that they should be treated like the water and electric companies. Another reason why I think that we the people, by way of the government, should be able to have unfettered access to the 'net is because the government has given the telco's about $200 bn, of our tax money, to build up their infrastructure so we can all have broadband access. Just my $0.02
I actually agree totally even though technically i'm on the opposite side. For me, it was one really bad thing or another. There's competition in the marketplace so there will be an incentive for people to work around collusion in most cases. if the govt gets involved, just to costs of reporting will be enough to keep a lot of people out of the market. It automatically tacks a premium on starting up in many aspects of the net. So to me, the choice was between crappy companies getting to play proprietary games with access or the govt doing it. I just don't trust the govt and think they are too stupid/ignorant to do it properly and am afraid of what they'll do. The net has done pretty friggin well so far so leaving it as is would be a good approach in my book - no bill would have been better than either bill
Yeah, I agree with what you said too Bill. I don't think that there's much compition in the market place though when it comes to ISP's, it's usually one cable, one DSL, and a few dial-up which aren't worth the money IMO. So you basically have two choices, and unless you get the rest of your services through the same company that you get your ISP through you get hosed on the price. I think that the .gov messed up when they gave the telco's billions of tax dollars so that they could hook up us peeps with high speed, and of course the telco's aren't going to meet the agreed upon stipulations of that cash grab and the .gov will do nothing about it...that's pretty much my main problem with this. Big business got a lot of our money so they can build up their business structure, and now they are going to be in total control of it. I don't know....it's not a simple problem but it still pi55es me off.