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.
With out Net Neutrality how can your average Joe compete with the Netflix and Amazons of the world. I understand the ISPs have the right to manage there own companies but being able to pick and choose who has better connection and who doesn't is to much especially since the ISP market is currently a monopoly. In the United States you maybe have 3 choices and there all pretty bad but not as bad as the rest and those are Comcast, ATT and Verizon. When these companies are raising the speeds for the companies they own and for the big companies that can afford to pay for the extra bandwidth how can a start up company with little money ever compete when the average american will back out of a website if it takes more 5 seconds to load. Net Neutrality is not the permanent solution but prioritization of certain companies is much worse.
The government should not be allowed to limit the internet, it is not up to them how a tool such as the internet should be used by the people, even if the big isp companies are paying for it. All the good websites are against this and so should you.
The internet is essential for businesses and is becoming essential for individuals. If it is not treated like a utility, large corporations, who can afford to pay more for their internet service, will suck up all the bandwidth. The recently adopted rules still allow ISPs to block illegal content, so that is not an issue. It seems that most people opposed to net neutrality are opposed to merely it because they think the idea came out of the Obama administration. The idea is decades old, and it came from internet users!
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.
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
The internet does not belong to the people, it belongs to the ISPs, hence why they are selling such a service. Saying they may not discriminate based on who pays more is equivalent to the government enforcing a ban on Toyota to sell Lexus, the premium line, or the Cheescake factory to franchise it's "grande lux" line - the core of capitalism lies in the ability to offer differing tiers of services and goods.