The internet is not a human right. You are not entitled to the internet.
You having affordable access to services like YouTube and Facebook is also not a human right.
It astounds me that we have so many people on the right, and people claiming to be libertarians that are defending net neutrality. In other words, defending a form of government coercion.
Things like this go a long way in exposing a lot of so called "libertarians". As long as stuff doesn't concern them, they're libertarians, but as soon as they might need to spend the extra buck, they run away to the caring arms of socialism.
Net neutrality is a form of government control, and last I checked libertarians were a group intelligent enough to know why government control is a bad idea.
It's silly that under net neutrality people who use a service - let's say cat videos on YouTube - can take bandwidth away from people not watching cat videos, and they don't have to pay for it.
The only model that makes sense is one where the people spending bandwidth watching cat videos shill out the money for said extra bandwidth.
Under net neutrality, George who is 75 year old and uses the internet to pay his bills once a month pays the same as Carl the Cryptogeek who is online 24/7.
I feel this sucks for George. It would make more sense for George to pay a smaller fee than Carl, since George uses less of the service.
Getting rid of net neutrality will enable the market to come up with new ideas to offer internet services to people. That's what everybody seems to be missing. Getting rid of the government and involving the market leads to better and more varied results. Come on, people.
Like for instance, YouTube can offer its old service to people for free, or for a small fee, but a better service for those willing to pay for it. Instead of being an archaic one size fits all solution, due to government interference.
In the end, it's a matter of principle, I will admit.
If a company builds an internet cable, you damn right that company should have every right to decide how said cable is being used, not the government.
Getting rid of net neutrality should be celebrated, it's a smart thing done by the US government, which doesn't happen often.
And everybody's shitting all over it.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What are you smoking? Net neutrality is the idea that you pay a flat fee to a broadband provider and they aren't allowed to manipulate your content. If they are allowed to manipulate your content, you aren't using an "internet", you're using an "intranet" because they will firewall off competitors or ideas they don't want people to have access too.
The end result is that there is no internet and there's only serfs who have the ability to choose which corporate walled garden (like the apple store) to subscribe to. So yea, you are sort of correct stating net neutrality is "socialism", if by that you mean all large, complex, public works projects are incapable of being done by the private sector because they don't have the land usage rights or millions of other rights to lay down pipes everywhere on other people's property to facilitate that business.
So I guess the argument boils down to the fact that socialism is anti-freedom, but can temporarily leverage resources to create larger, more complex structures than the private sector, before socialism inevitably collapses from immediately turning into crony capitalism. This makes "freedom" kind of a pro-Amish movement, but a free society will be less able to leverage resources to tackle big problems or create technological spectacles. This makes the Amish kind of right that technology is a deal with the devil. If you want the internet, then you want socialism, otherwise you're getting an intranet.
Totally agree!
The less the government interferes in bussiness the better
Amen.
George is getting screwed!!
#justiceforgeorge!
More providers will show up to the marketplace now.
Bottom line, after this change, we will all pay more and get less. And big companies will benefit the most. As usually, screw the people.
I want an access provider that has "dumb pipes" and treats all data the same, and I prefer content providers that treat all access providers the same, and I don't care much if the market or the leprechauns in my back yard provide this, as I am cult-neutral in all things economic.
Very interesting point of view and glad I stumbled upon this. I'm sure like many people, my Facebook has been bombarded with people all upset over the repeal, but I had yet to see someone explain from the other side. I've always thought the less government, the better. I guess I got caught up in everything and forgot what I really felt. Thank you for reminding me
Wow...what a collection of the excrement you accuse everyone of making in your last sentence. What all of us pay for is bandwidth and in some instances a quantity of data. So if I want to pay $50 for 5mb/s internet from Comcast that is what I get. I'm not taking any of your bandwidth. If I want to pay $150 for gigabit service and I want to turn on the tap and download all the content I can 24/7 I am getting the benefit of the bargain of my subscripton level. If there is a cap on volume, which their probably is (I think most have like a terabyte/month or something), then I will be punished. But I am not taking anything from anyone. Luckily bandwidth is unlimited in the sense that as long as there is electricity it is always there and is always improving in speed and quality of service.
And you obviously do not understand the issue. What market are your talking about? And more importantly, what "new ideas" are there? Is having equal ability to access anything that you want on the Internet, anytime that you want, and for as long as you want not enough? The only "new" ideas beyond what we currently have are all lesser versions where we pay more for less. Oh, right, you said the "market" will take care of that...so how many ISP's can you choose from where you live? One? Two? Probably one. If not, tell us, what are the differences between the two in your area? What are the price differences, speed, etc.? I imagine there is little daylight between the two. Otherwise, the overwhelming majority of us have no choice. No the regional monopolies is what makes the loss of net neutrality so harmful.
Tell us, what is this government interference resulting in "archaic one size fits all solitions" you talk of? I didn't realize the "government" was micromanaging Google and YouTube and regulating how they operate. This is news to me. Please tell me more. You have whetted my appetite for what you know. I mean usually when I see something like your broad general meaningless statement about government interference I think it is just a rhetorical device that is meant to disguise the author's ignorance, or is an amateruish attempt to inflame emotions of like minded readers who are easily distracted by propoganda. But since you have apparently found the connection between government interference and the problem with archaic one size fits all solutions on the Internet, I am starved to learn what you know. Please please please would you update your post to tell us what you have discovered on this topic as it relates to net neutrality?
103 votes? 69 reputation? Seriously? I have to see what else you have contributed to the community, because this piece of whatever it is...not portraying a flattering portrait...
Yeah. This (the OP) is the first post on the platform that isn't a spammy comment that I've considered downvoting for being so utterly inaccurate, and so dangerous to unimpeded access to information on the internet. I wish I had more SP to upvote your post more.
The post does, however, do a rather nice job pointing out the hypocrisy and lack of critical thought of many of the libertarian belief system's cheerleaders, especially those who have long ago given up thinking for themselves and have found safety from scientific and intellectual exertion in a group of fellow uncritical cultists. This is not necessarily an indictment of libertarianism, just of many of its followers.
It is the idealogues who fall back on catch phrases and generalities devoid of fact. You can lay out a detailed reason why Ine neutrality is good and how we will be harmed; paintstakingly list public statments made by ISP executives, point out that Ajit Pai is motivated by his return to the private sector as an executive probably at Verizon, how he abused the comment period, and yadda yadda yadda. Doesn't mean anything becasue they just say "But we don't want the gevernment regulatng nad censoring the Internet. These guys can't get out from beneath their slogans.
I am just amazed at the disingenuous, cynical, bull sh*t that has been peddled by the Alit Pai's of the country. It was strange for me to join Steemit and see so many people in support of getting rid of net neutrality and how misinformed they are. Of course FaceBook, Quora, and the blogosphere seems to be overwhelmingly in support of net neutrality. The only group that appears to have whole heartedly taken up the ISPs' cause is the libertarians. But between the lack of intellectual rigor and their perceptions and belief structures being so divorced from the facts, it is hard to stomach the vast majority of their posts.
There's a pretty big anarcho-capitalist community here. It's not surprising really given the cyptocurrency model/ethic. But there's also a reasonable level of social libertarian and social democratic voices here, so it gives me something else to read when I get sick of the AC bollocks.
You made some interesting points. In my perspective, joe and george should be paying the same amount if they are asking for the same service regardless of how much time is spent online. Its when corporation X that is providing the internet decide it can purchase a 100 plan and distribute 10 to fifteen different customers and gamble that not all of them will use their full 10. Joe and george both paid for 10 and while old george may never use more than 2, he should still be allotted the 10 he paid for. So when joe reaches his limit, they my charge him extra but they have already been paid by george for the same internet. Once again big companies not living up to their contracts and the little guys shelling out for it. And poor george is buffering his taxes because joe wants to watch cat videos.... idk how the government could possibly fix this, they tend to make things way worse.
As for us on crypto sites trying to make an extra buck, well i doubt we get better than dial up for our content because we dont have investors in the senate or house to express our goals or interests. Just my thoughts, i do not claim to be an expert.
I have been remaining open-minded about this. What bothered me the most, in all honesty, was the way media put a spin on this entire debate. They keep saying "oh your monthly bill will be so much more now... etc, etc
Well, that may be... but I don't want the government having complete control either,
That never happens does it?
I think you are wrong in the sense that poor ole george could just take a smaller dataplan, which will allow him to do the few things he does on the internet. Heavy users will want the best of the best and they'll have a more expensive data plan. At least that's how it is in Belgium, you have data plans according to what you want to use (bandwith/monthly #Gb you can use)
"Can't we all just get a long-term data plan that cost less?" - Rodney King
That's exactly how it works everywhere. His analogy had absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. Lack of net neutrality is the concept that content providers pay differing amounts for access to the internet. An absence of net neutrality will lead to censorship and a monoculture of giant corporate propaganda.
™
People want freedom until they get it and then they realize things are done that they dont agree with.
I was chatting with a guy about censorship and he was saying that on steem, we need to find a way to pull stuff off the blockchain.....when I pointed out that went against the entire premise, he pulled out the kiddy porn card or other "dusgusting" things.
If you want freedom you have to tolerate things that make your stomach churn.
By the way, this guys response was there is a point where freedom can go to....wtf is that?
You are right, it is not, but it should be. :3
What if I like socialism?
it's still not a right, it's a preference for forced redistribution compared to voluntary redistribution
Voluntary redistribution seldom works due to the greedy nature of humans.
The internet should be a public utility, not a private for profit enterprise.
This has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. It so wrong I don't even know where to start.
you are right my friend!
just wrote a post along the same lines, but yours is much more pleasant to read !