CAN I HAZ INTERWEBZ?! (Net Neutrality) By Steven Crowder

Steven's analogy to the postal service is the most apt in this video. These people are supporting more government control to try to solve a problem of government control. -The 1996 telecom act is not when Title II net neutrality was implemented, the 1996 act is where the first internet provider rules were implemented which were later updated in 2003.

2. Under Title II, the Internet is subject to a bevy of regulations at the whim of the FCC. He isn't being purposely wrong, but he is diverting attention to Google and Facebook censoring content which is a reasonable point but falls under a different category separate from net neutrality.

If an ISP decides to curate what you can access then they are deciding whose content you can access, not which of their own content you can access. There's also the issue of how isp's maintain any kind of monopoly which is a) regulations and b) net neutrality.

Research the difference between ‘dedicated' service and ‘best-effort' service, and the economics behind running an ISP., and you'll quickly realize that an ‘all-you-can-eat' internet means congestion for everyone. The problem is that many people in the US dont have a choice in which isp they use which if net neutrality goes away it gives the isp 100% control over what their customers see and at what speed.

Ian Tuttle notes at National Review that when the FCC first attempted net neutrality regulations in 2010, they were only able to "cite just four examples of anticompetitive behavior, all relatively minor." Cell phone networks , which are not subject to net neutrality-esque regulations, don't engage in such anticompetitive behavior.

I definitely see your point of view on net neutrality, and yes the federal government screws up everything it touches, but as an internet user I believe ending net neutrality would cause a whole slew of issues. But as ISP consolidation takes place, Google and the likes will pay a price.

They purchase and distribute content and they purchase packet time from the companies that own the infrastructure. The problem is consumer interests are not represented in these backroom deals combined with the fact that there's insufficient competition to cause ISPs to worry about loosing customers.

Burger King is known for its creepy plastic king mascot, its subpar burgers, and now the bad actors in the following ad. With Net Neutrality back in America's vocabulary, Burger King thought it would capitalize by showing itself as an anti-capitalist internet food joint (see Ted Cruz Finishes Mark Hamill's Jedi Training on Net Neutrality and Net Neutrality Supporter Sends Death Threats to Republican Congressman ).

In other words, an ISP (like Comcast) would be unable to charge more (or throttle) for streaming through Vimeo over YouTube, or for accessing the internet through a Sony Playstation 4 as opposed to an X-Box One. Most important, it allows the FCC to regulate not just your (hated) broadband provider, but also your favorite internet services.

Maintaining the FCC's heavy hand in the ISP market will only harm consumers. Netflix is widely popular in the united states, to keep this running, the Internet service providers said that the consumers under its ISP should pay for the massive infrastructure upgrades necessary to provide that service.

Net Neutrality makes it for 1 gb of data from source A has to be treated the same as 1gb of data from source B. Now that it's gone, Comcast, Charter, AT&T, Verizon have total control over what we can and can't access on Steven Crowder Net Neutrality the internet. Without net neutrality, this type of private arrangement between ISPs and the big services providers becomes legal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *