Without this we would be subject to slower speeds. We may even be subject to get content we search for censored or filtered. It's possible to even get content blocked from us. This can take away our freedom to search the web in our current generation of technology. Maybe sometime in the future this might be a good thing, but for now it's not.
If big companies can charge people different amounts to use the internet, then they can control who can use the internet, which ruins free speech. It is also unfair for smaller companies that can't afford to pay the extra price. Net neutrality protects the freedom of the internet. Thank you.
If local broadband and fast Internet providers were in many many different areas, this would be fine to NOT have net neutrality. Competion would assure that prices stayed low. But that's NOT HOW THINGS ARE SET UP IN THE USA. Usually there is only 1-2 providers in one area, and you are stuck paying what ever they want to charge you. That is called a regional monopoly, and is one of the problems with capitalism. Government is then required to break up monopolies. Second, if we believed every thing cable and ISp providers told us, and they actually held their words to be true, we would be find. But comcast and other providers have been caught MULTIPLE MULTIPLE times throttling services like net flix or hulu so that people would instead also buy their cable tv packages. > They made Netflix pay more so that they wouldn't slow down their service they already had a contract for. And also, when you pay for service, you pay for a certain SPEED . Not speed for individual websites, speed for ALL OF THE INTERNET. This breaks almost every contract out there. So al and all, Net Neutrality is necessary to keep ISPs honest, allow customers to actually get the goods they pay for, and prevent monopolist overcharging and gouging.
Net Neutrality allows for a liberated internet, and independence from promotion of various companies and websites through cable speed. I don't want cable companies being allowed to dictate which websites I can and can't go to, and I feel that if net neutrality isn't protected it could become as much of a clusterfuck as cable television. It's not like capitalism in real life in which companies have limited authority over other companies. In a lack of net neutrality large providers (the gateways to the internet) could have massive and unchecked authority over the individual users of the internet.
If we don't have Net Neutrality then we run the risk of allowing ISP's to censor information, specifically they can create false RST packet responses if they deem a certain service too competitive. We saw this happen with Comcast in 2007, where P2P file sharing services would have false RST packets interjected into them by the network. This would stop the transmission of all packets, stooping the consumer from receiving the information they request.
. Net neutrality began in 2014 when Tom Wheeler released a plan that would allow AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon to discriminate online and create a pay-to-play fast lanes. Regulators across the globe are grappling with issues about the internet and debating net neutrality. The FCC or Federal Communications Commission is in charge of net neutrality and placing rules on internet in the U.S. Net neutrality gives the government more power over the internet. Although the government would be monitoring the internet, it is only to ensure that internet service providers are not discriminating against certain people. Net neutrality preserves our right to communicate freely online.
Net neutrality is true digital equality. Instead of trying to get a few sites to more people, they should try to get data to more people , so they can access all of the internet. Corporations must not be allowed to control the internet. It is a basic utility tool and should remain in the hands of the government.
Internet users should be given the freedom to use internet without any hindrance. Net neutrality will preserve the fact that govt has no control over one's personal data use and it will also welcome the new entrepreneurs to start there business with the help of the internet. So its good.
Net Neutrality stops ISPs from intentionally slowing down sites loading time. Normally, ISPs set a base loading time for sites that don't pay extra money for "premium". With net neutrality, companies can't treat one website better than another, meaning that all websites will load the same amount of data in the same amount of time. Of course, large pages will still load slower than smaller pages, but you get the idea. There will be no intentional slowing down of data. That will most likely lead to some sites having faster loading time. That increases internet democracy.
Net neutrality does not prevent freedom of speech. I don't get how people think that. If anything, it increases freedom of speech by preventing ISPs from slowing down sites. The last time net neutrality laws were introduced, Verizon shot them down. It claimed that net neutrality gets rid of their freedom of speech by preventing the ISPs from controlling content that they carry. Controlling the content they carry sounds a bit like interfering with the websites freedom of speech. AT&T claimed that "broadband providers may feature some content over others" like "editorial discretion" in newspapers. The difference here is that the internet browser is asking for the information, not seeing what the newspaper is printing.
The internet is the lowest layer of the protocol stack that powers cyberspace. Because cyberspace is increasingly ubiquitous and it is becoming increasingly important for people to access it, it is essential that the underlying network is designed with the right principles. One of the most essential principles is the end-to-end principle: the links in the network (cables and routers in our abstraction) have the sole purpose of getting information from point A to point B. It is only appropriate for a link to refuse or delay the delivery of information when essential to preserve the functionality of the network or when one of the nodes is trying to exceed the bandwidth that was paid for.
Maintaining a stance of neutrality does not help anyone. If one agrees with a stance or action one should speak up so that consensus may be reached and those outside of consensus are given the chance to re-evaluate. This, of course, applies to things that matter, in the case of things that don't matter, such as the actions of celebrities, a non-opinion and neutrality is best.
No, net neutrality is not a good thing, because it prevents people from doing legitimate things on the internet. Most people think net neutrality is simply a way of making sure that the internet is not censored. Rather, internet neutrality is a way of allowing internet providers to filter content that they think is illegal, or slow down content that they think is taking up too much space. This is a proper use of network administration.
The FCC had previously attempted to enforce such rules illegally, but lost in the Comcast v FCC case. This time Verizon took them on, and FCC lost again! You see, back in the Clinton years, a bill passed with bipartisan support that freed the Internet from burdensome regulation. It was called the Telecommunications Act, and its specifically separated information services from telecommunications services, disallowing the FCC from imposing the same degree of regulations on Internet services that they can on the Phone company. This was important in the debate before the Open Internet order, because Net Neutrality had already been ruled illegal in the Comcast case. So the radical left had argued that the FCC should wave a magic wand and declare that Internet service providers are no longer information services, and are now phone companies, and so should be reclassified as such. Today’s decision in Verizon v FCC rests on the classification of ISPs as being information services, as envisioned by the Telecommunications Act, which again was passed by Newt Gingrich’s House and signed by Bill Clinton. That’s how much of a common-sense thing it used to be, to have a lightly-regulated Internet. Bottom line do you really want the Govt to control your use of the Information Super Highway? Net Neutrality does nothing but give immense power to the FCC.
Yeah! Seems fair right? But companies could use net neutrality as policy.
OK, now come to the NIGHTMARE! Imagine a newly hosted domain a. Domain a is text based and can be loaded in second. Domain b is video based like YouTube. Now imagine giving equal access to both domain. Even the smallest must be treated like the biggest? You should be able to pay more for more. And get less to pay less. The "speed bump" policy is disallowed by competition.
We should be able to browse the internet without the internet companies wanting more money than we have to give them every month from our hard work and pay them out of pocket for them to not make the internet any faster but to make pipes to slow down our use of the internet and the speed of the internet.
'm Rick Harrison, and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss. Everything in here has a story and a price. One thing I've learned after 23 years. You never know WHAT is gonna come through that door. . . .
I’m Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I’ve learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door. . . . . . . . . . . .
Dab gang gang gang dab gang swag money gang gang gang lit fam fam fam fam fam lit lit lit lit gang gang lit gas gang lit fam lit dab dab dab money swag swag dab swag lit swag fam mony gang gang liiiiiiiiit lit fam 420 dank meme fam
Asd as d sad sd sa dsa ds ds sd sd sd s ds ds as a dsa sdas dsa das d asd sdbuttsad sd rg grg rtg g rt gf vxc vx cvdf vg bgfb fg bf br gerf ef ewf wefw ef efv v d v df vdf v
Sdasdsad dsdsssd sdsdssd sdsdds dsddss dsdss dsdsdsdsdsdssdsdsd
ash as as as as as a ss s s s s s s s s s s s ss s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s