Are you claiming that San Fransisco's electrical grid is purely free market?
Whatever the net is, it's still a tool for democratic free speech and a defence against tyrrany. Be assured, by whatever means, the tyrranical regimes on this planet understand this and will do whatever is necessary to control free speech. This happens now in China. The architecture is being put in place to do the same for the west. This is a battle for freedom, not packets and ISPs.
So that picture is the result of government managing the distribution of electricity?Not remotely. Why do you ask?
Net neutrality is a contradiction, because one major corporation is telling us all what to do: the government. What if I want my ISP to give priority to video traffic? What if I want my ISP to throttle spam mails? What if I want my ISP to block DOS attacks? What if I want my ISP to block bittorrent? I should have that choice and so should my ISP. But if Net "Neutrality" takes place, I can't choose that because Umaro and his buddies don't want me to. They know what I need best. They're in control.
That's ultimately what this is about: the statists manufacturing another crisis as an excuse to pass more laws for the sake of control.
Then I imagine you would not have many customers.What if I wanted to make an ISP that won't load libertarian and conservative websites?
Then I imagine that ISP would lose a lot of business.What if that ISP was already as established as the current ones are?
This is ridiculous scaremongering. The internet has been around quite some time. Why haven't they done that yet? Can you make a legitimate case that these problems are occurring and widespread enough to warrant this?There will be problems if private corporations control all information on the internet.
Then I imagine you would not have many customers.
Then I imagine that ISP would lose a lot of business.
This is ridiculous scaremongering. The internet has been around quite some time. Why haven't they done that yet? Can you make a legitimate case that these problems are occurring and widespread enough to warrant this?
The internet has been around quite some time.
That picture is the result of the government limiting the number of electrical providers to one.So that picture is the result of government managing the distribution of electricity?
I'm wondering how you make the leap to privatization making things worse. That seems counter-intuitive. "See how bad it is with the government? Private would be worse!" There doesn't seem to be anything to base that on.
4chan is not a conservative site.
4chan is not a conservative site.
So you have two companies blocking filthy sites and illegal file exchanges. That's a far cry from some weird complex blocking the news to manipulate the millions.
So wait...the argument is now, "unless we have net neutrality, I'll have to learn to type website names properly, won't be able to steal music and movies illegally, and won't be able to get into websites suspected of hosting dangerous malware while said accusations are being investigated?"
Postal" neutrality would prohibet Federal Express from charging money for high quality express service on the public Interstates.
Everything would move at the efficiency of the US Postal Service, except worse: all correspondence would travel in easily opened envelopes that were subject to the beer bottle throwing whims of every bored 14 year old in the world. Too bad if businesses wanted to pay a premium for something that actually worked, equality in everything is our goal, and by that we mean, nothing above the reach of the lowest among us.
In this age, if some act has the word 'neutrality' or 'fairness' in it, it is a sign to run.
What I am surprised at is the apparent limit to the limitless 'Commerce clause.' How did they fail in this instance to find everything they could possibly need in that Magic pair of words?
A premium express lane that made a reasonable effort at keeping the riff-raff at arms length would be well worth the extra premium.
I say, too bad if the 'neutrality loving riff-raff wouldn't like that. They can be as neutral as they want on the dirt roads.
1. Standards exist for a reason.
2. Torrenting isn't illegal.
3. Where does the news story mention suspicions of malware, and/or an investigation?
Jeffrey Nelson, a "PR guy" from Verizon, confirmed the blockage via Twitter. "2 of 4Chan affiliates were staging for attacks," Nelson wrote, adding that the attacks had stopped. "They're green-lighted for tonight's network update."
1. The standard is all ISPs do the same thing and the net neutrality liars made it sound like it was forcing searches with their search engine which it was not.
2. Americas Army. The only thing I literally have seen that is considered legal to download and was put there by the developer.
3. I don't know, maybe in the 2nd paragraph?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?