Because i too am mercan and im mad cus i to had my writing lost then had to retype te whole thing so me mad to but me also happy because mnjbhvbjkhfgd makes me happy And it is mercan goverment sad/good ok I have eight dope words left to go
If there wouldnt be any net neutrality i have to pay for memes and thats something that no one wants, right? Memes are one of the things that keep me from ending it all. If i dont browse memes on a daily basis i would go crazy. There for i ask you all to kill net neutrality
Humans are learning a lot but becoming dumb because all they know is to search on google. Memes also is ruining internet so Net Neutrality will get rid of cancerous thing in internet. Clickbait is also annoying , it' so annoying that it made me want to destroy my PC. With Net Neutrality, clickbaits aren't a thing anymore. Because most clickbaiters are desperate for money and poor. The rise of bandwidth-heavy web services like video streaming and content downloads means internet service providers have less money to spend on upgrading their networks, they argue. If they could charge Google, Microsoft, et al for carrying their resource-intensive services, they could invest in upgrading their networks and extending them further.Some opponents of net neutrality lament how easily accessible legal but age-sensitive content like pornography is. While there are plenty of security vendors who allow families to restrict the sites available on a family computer, more children have smartphones and connected devices with which they can get online without adult supervision.
If an internet service provider could block these services at a network-wide level, this would go a long way to solving this issue. This would be the case under the UK's Digital Economy Bill, which, if passed, would force people to verify their identity to access porn sites, and would block those sites from showing 'unconventional' sex acts.
Providers could also crack down on peer-to-peer file-sharing, which is responsible for a lot of illegal downloads, thus preventing piracy.
Most arguments against neutrality are like this one: " 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." Amazingly missing the point that scares the rest of us. The argument is to give a business the power to control an extremely powerful method of communication based on decisions made behind closed doors. A business will do what is right for the stockholder and to make big bonuses. They will not, as a business, make decisions that will benefit anybody unless it also benefits themselves. As some are waking up to the fact that Fox News content and delivery has a very strong political and religious agenda powered by a few extremely wealthy people, some day we will wake up to the fact that ISP's have swayed the general population for personal, political, and financial gain, without any respect for the population at large. Sorry. Business as a rule does not care.
If the concern is that emergency services don't have the speed they are due then provide a speed code for them. If a business, like netflix, cares to use an extremely high volume they should pay for it. But the ISP should NOT chose their own news stories over any other news story. THIS is the argument and this is what is being eroded at haste. What a tremendous loss for the United States.
The Internet is made of its users. Not anything else. It is a set of websites created by its users and without its users the Internet is complelty useless to us. We are the ones that publish and post the websites and the information that people take information from. Therefore, we should be the ones to decide what we do and do not see from our computer screens. The government or anything else does not have the authority to choose whether or not to slow down an service or to charge the user. That is absurd and irrational. We are in control and no one else is. That is an abuse of power if they are controlling even what we see on our computers. That is wrong. That is unjust. Net Neutrality is the best way to mutual freedom and no one can take that away. The more out technology advances, the more our rights shall advance as well. This is a natural right, and taking it away is unconstitutional and unjust.
Look. AT&T were known limiting access to Vonage, a rival company. Comcast even blocked Bit-torrent users. ISP's have no right to throttle users based on the websites they visit, for the protocols they use. There's no point getting rid of net neutrality. Things are fine just the way they are. Pajeet Pie can gfhs.
Net neutrality isn't communism or unfair. Anyone who says this is,
(a). On the wrong topic and is talking about something else
(b). Willfully ignorent of basic facts.
(c). Certifiably insane.
Net Neutrality only prevents companies from only giving good service to people that ether pay them or agree with them.
All these arguments about the internet becoming faster is complete idiocy. How will losening regulations on companies help speed?!
Taking away our freedoms? Really, thats just dumb.
Since your internet provider service can now charge you money for going to websites, we have more money to add the the new Trump law. If we are poor and pass time by watching youtube or playing games, ur website provider may force you to pay money to use those websites.
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.
Internet is a service that you are NOT entitled to. Good grief, I think we're experiencing ignorance or just plain stupidity on a grand scale in this country. It seems we live in a country where science and economics means make it work for me and have someone else pay for it.
The argument against net neutrality- ECON101.
The ideology of the United States is to give equal opportunities, not equal assets. The idea that everyone is given the same distribution of internet assets is crude. As long as the United States ensures that there is a minimum and a maximum, to prevent extreme choices, the destruction of net neutrality has no major flaws. Also, as long as no websites are BANNED and that anyone can choose their own ISP, it will prevent ISPs from making unfavorable choices, as no one will choose their service if they segregate the internet extremely. Therefore, it is clear that net neutrality can be destroyed and have little to no consequences.
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.
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.
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.
The problem is that bandwidth is a limited resource that everyone must share. When you have half of the bandwidth being used by 5-10% of the users to watch youtube and netflix(large bandwithd hogs) and hurts the 90% of people who are browsing the web to read news, send emails, perform distributed research. ISP's want to be able to guarantee 90% of it's users access to the internet at a high speed, however under net neutrality they must extend those same speed guarantees to people watching youtube, meaning they must lower the overall speed of its traffic so that they can meet their service guarantees. The 2nd problem is that this opens the door for the FCC to regulate internet content like they currently regulate radio and television.
Some people love more options to choose from and it maybe is not needed but look at the world now the generation of technology is huge and if there is no competition then there is practically no reason to choose the opposing or going wireless connection like version or sprint.
There are a lot of important data on the internet. However, because of net neutrality, they have to treat all data equally. If there are lots of people looking up images, then people who need the internet for critical work would need to wait along with the people looking up images. There is a lot of things that can go wrong for the worker. However, if net neutrality ends, the operator would see that the worker needs to get it done fast and would prioritize the worker.
Net neutrality isn't fair, especially to the people who tend to use more internet service then others. I think that people should be more fair and accept the fact that net neutrality not only affects the extreme users, but also the nonusers since the speed usually affects everyone. People who do say that net neutrality is good are usually the people who binge watch on YouTube or Netflix