Well no I haven't had a few hours to read thru their excessively long bill. I never jump on bandwagons. Tend to be the last one to. I just asked a question to as which it meant to over turn it. I know they like to name bills obtusely or even opposite what they are for. So, I was under the impression that the FCC had rejected the free access of the internet, and that was Net Neutrality. So, the government overturning said overturn would be a plus. But, if I am misunderstanding any of this, I was asking. Thank you for the information. I'll be sure to ride my bandwagon to another source of information.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Ya watch out for that band wagon.
Of course it seems like Net Neutrality is all about internet freedom. That is why they pick words like neutrality that tug on your feels.
It is the same for the Affordable Health Care Act because no one could afford it.
All Net Neutral did was poorly attempt to dictate how ISPs allocate their bandwidth. The reasons why the law was useless are all first year economics. In short the ISP would lose billions and likely go out of business if they tried to bundle Netflicks, which was the main terror of the ignorant mob.
What law does make sense is already in place. It is not legal for media companies to claim territory in the US. That law just needs to be enforced.
As for the internet being free that is up to ICANN which is up for sale to the highest bidder thanks to Obummer.
Well s&%# I didn't know that last part, for sure! So, Net Neutrality, the bill, is trash. As far as fingers in the honeypot, that is the internet, that's already done. I appreciate the clarity here. Sometimes it gets difficult to discern truth with all the noise and sources out there. Cheers!
Woohoo!
A Steem penny! xD
I could get to like this.
I bumped into something that might bring you a laugh or frustration, specifically on this topic, so I figured this a good place to share. Now, knowing things on this level are done for a reason. Some people have different agendas. What are your reactions to this: Burger King made a surprisingly good ad about net neutrality. Obviously, something cooked up for the consumers, no pun intended. But, are they explaining it even close to correct? Why would they speak against something now portrayed to me as something the corporations would want? Or just a big time wasting distraction, deed is done? I appreciate your angle on things, and your time. Cheers! When I have more than pennies, it'll be better :).
P.S. - Doesn't this behave similar to the blockchain? If so, is it really that bad? If you value your time so much you will pay for speed, then you should, in comparison, be providing a service highly valued by society enough to have said funds to spend excessively. Every measure more requires exponentially more energy to provide, so it's very indicative of how nature works in a way...without straying from the point here.
I am going with frustration. They are making a false analogy with their lousy food.
Paying to speed up the time it takes to stuff a burger into your face is actually more analogous to the actual market without NN. It comes off as them saying you should not be able to pay for more bandwidth. And that is just silly.
Also they left out the one thing that 99% of the customers would do. That is walk out the door and find some other nasty fast food to gobble on.
And that core fundamental right of our society to choose is what is being ignored. If the ISP tried to 'bundle' or otherwise not provide the service expected then all the customer has to do is cancel.
At any rate the NN regulations were useless because they did not provide any penalty for 'bundling'.
I guess everything that scales with use is similar to the blockchain in that regard. We can be thankful the development of storage medium has kept up with the need. So I think I can see your angle. The internet is like a growing plant that adapts to facilitate it's own growth. I never thought of it as natural before.
Itself, not natural, of course. But, it's patterns and interactions are a result of a natural system, us. So, like we have been able to notice similarities between small, natural system's growth and humans' population of the planet thru these large patterns we seem to follow. I would predict technology would still be subjected to these "natural" tendencies. My reference to the blockchain was in regards to how each block gets progressively more expensive to complete, correct? Just the way I understand up to this point. The encryption equations are getting ever more difficult requiring more computing power, therefore more energy per token. Hence the decrease in small time mining, because any single consumer device can't really make a dent in the problem. Again, speculating here based off my experiences thus far, and greatly appreciate someone with more, sharing theirs. Thank you.