There is much talk about the need for "net neutrality" legislation. It strikes me as a solution looking for a problem that does not actually exist.
Government cannot tolerate innovation and freedom, so it seeks to control everything. Of course, this is always done under the guise of protecting the general populace, but the consequences are invariably destructive. If you trusted Obama, why would you want Trump to have such power? If you trust Trump, why would you want to risk someone like Hillary Clinton gaining such power? No, the solution is freedom.
Never trust a political solution,e specially when the alleged problem isn't even evident in the first place. If there is a problem, look for the prior government intervention that created it.
What are the economic incentives that reward an ISP for preventing access to portions of the web? Why would it be bad for an ISP to offer priority access to certain services? Look at matters in depth, rather than through superficial paranoid fearmongering. Always ask who benefits, and how newfound political powers could be abused. Last but not least, remember whose lobbyists invariably write the legislation.
If you like this post, please comment, follow, and resteem!
If you like this post, please comment, follow, and resteem!
Why should ISPs decide who has priority access? This will stifle innovation for smaller companies and the big players will always win even though they need to pay more. Check out my recent posts for more info on the matter.
When have the little guys ever been stifled? I mean, other than when the government has done it.
What happens to steemit when Facebook pays all the carriers to block access to the site? What happens when bandwidth priority is decreased on steemit?
How is that even remotely a realistic possibility?
Once steemit becomes a threat, we'll see the repercussions.
This post received a 3.8% upvote from @randowhale thanks to @brianjuice! For more information, click here!
Great post jacob :D
Also isn't it the government has created a scarcity of bandwidth, which keeps the FCC in business. The government creates the problem by saying it is protecting the commons, then charges for the use of the commons. It also picks the winners and losers. It then tells the winners that it has to extract profits to give to the losers. Nothing but a protection racket.
I found this after the initial post.
I'm up for some organic internet. Ru?
as I have said in my previous comment, the statement at 2:25-2:32 it this video is literally a lie. THIS HAS HAPPENED, for example in 2013 when comcast made netflix pay more so that their stream would remain high quality. link. This is either bad documentation or worse, cognitive dissonance. Up to you to judge if you feel like this person is trustworthy
Several comments:
Why do companies like Comcast have so little competition, and are thus able to perform such alleged actions?
Companies like Netflix especially have dramatically altered bandwidth loads, especially on cable internet systems. Why shouldn't companies be free to experiment with ways to alter delivery of media through funding? The internet is an experimental frontier.
What was the result of the lawsuit? All I see are allegations and accusations.
This guy forgot about the 1996 Communication Act.
I liked this video
Is there a retort on this one?
Why should all data be treated equally? The USPS doesn't treat all snail mail equally. And I don't trust century-old or even decade-old "laws" to account for technological advancements. Government control is always destructive, and the corporate behemoths are only a threat because of prior government protections. And laws never are restricted to their sales pitch bullet points.
Do this one next!
Upvoted and RESTEEMED!
One simple exmaple would be to force people or companies to buy special subscriptions to access their preferred websites.
If the ISP market were truly free, that wouldn't be a problem since other ISPs that didn't do that would be more competitive. However, the ISP market isn't free at all and is controlled by handfull of major ISPs.
-another brutal example would be that some ISPs are also owners of streaming services. Abolishing net neutrality would give them right of life and death over their competitors. The most flagrant example of that would be time warner and comcast. What stops them from killing netflix? nothing. This isnt just theory... they actually did that, in 2013!!, when net neutrality wasn't in place. Every online business could be extorted into paying more so that customers can connect to their website.
Taking down net neutrality would mean to transfer power to dishonest and monopolistic corporations that will do anything for profit, as they have shown times and times again. The lack of competition and the dishonesty of those corporations is why net neutrality shouldn't be touched. You say that we shoudl ask ourselves who would benefit? what does the government benefit from net neutrality? nothing. The consumers benefit from it, having the freedom to browse the Internet with no restrictions or control from corporations. The online businesses benefit from it since it garantees everyone can access their website freely. Who benefits from stopping net neutrality? No one, except greedy ISP corporations that have no competitors and that have proven how dishonorable they can be.
So the solution to a lack of competition should be removal of barriers erected by the government, not the imposition of new bureaucratic power through legislation that is guaranteed to be written by corporate lobbyists to exempt and grandfather their interests. Legislation never works as advertised, and invariably destroys whatever it is stated to protect. We need REAL net neutrality in a competitive market, not more government control and corporate protectionism.
And like I said above, filing a lawsuit is not proof of anything. I await trial. The video statement stands until actual evidence to the contrary is presented in court.
I'll give alonger answer later but just to be clear: in 2014 both Comcast and Netflix announced a deal where they agreed that Netflix would pay Comcast "for faster and more reliable access to Comcast’s subscribers." https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/business/media/comcast-and-netflix-reach-a-streaming-agreement.html. They BOTH announced this deal, how can you deny it??? I maintain what I said about the video. This was before the more strict 2015 net neutrality regulations; legally, this deal may actually not be illegal, the lawsuit was probably lauched because of the context of the Time Warner-Comcast merger.
This doesn't matter. The facts are here: Netflix had to pay Comcast so they could survive, and Comcast itself admitted to this. This for the consumer is extremely negative since it means an increase in price for netflix subscriptions; it is also negative for Netflix since it is at the mercy of what Comcast wants to do with them. It puts every online business at the mercy of major ISP's. In many areas of the US, Comcast has no competition; it doesn't matter why (well, it does, but as I said I currently don't have time for a long answer). It is a fact. No competition. The only thing that stands in their way from bullying both counsumers and online companies is the net neutrality legislation.
A "deal." Quite different from arbitrary restrictions, and quite reasonable considering the results of hi-def video streaming. It's how the real world works. People cooperate and find solutions. It doesn't sound at all like the boogeyman of censorship and restricted access.
eeh, I won't bother. If you want to transfer more power to corporations that are already rigging the free market, so be it. Typed from my laptop in Switzerland where I can choose between 3 different ISPs and never had to complain about the quality of their services (no one does here).
Who do you think writes the legislation for the us laws that invariably do the opposite of their noble-sounding titles?
oh noo . me too !!
I'm just going to leave this right here.
The Left want to regulate the Internet in order to limit the freedom of information thatnhas exposed their true agenda and enabled voices that were once religated to the fringes.