The why not give me some "serious" answers pertaining to the subject matter at hand instead of the knee jerk "defend the government oversight" crap?
I asked a question.
Thought you might be capable of the logical comparison.
Never mind.
The why not give me some "serious" answers pertaining to the subject matter at hand instead of the knee jerk "defend the government oversight" crap?
would someone explain to me why substituting the control of ISP's over data with the control of the FCC is somehow better?
This is a serious question. I see the pros and cons to "net neutrality" but I am having an issue with believing more government involvement is better.
Im not. That is the point of my original question. I can appreciate the answering a question with a question routine as it forces the original questioner to come up with answers using reason and deduction. I am looking for something a little more concrete than that. I understand if that is not something you are able to do at this point, however, if you think of something in the meantime please feel free to help me out.I asked a question.
Thought you might be capable of the logical comparison.
Never mind.
if the FCC would grow a backbone and classify all internet service providers as class II communication carriers .. then all ISP would be forced to give all parties equal access.
currently only America has ISP (internet service providers) that permanently keep their network saturated at 90% ... purposely degrading their own network. the logic that it costs to provide service to ISP's customer so content providers should pay to access is bogus!!!
ISP's conveniently forget their customers are already paying for their backbone costs and are already paying for internet access. only in America do major backbone providers like Level 3 offer to pay for peering upgrades at no costs to folks like Comcast and TWC to get rid of permanent 90% saturation levels. what Comcast and TWC don't tell you is they turn down those free peering upgrades.
Comcast and TWC has intentionally downgraded their own customer's web access speed. web access that their own customers are already paying for....
That is something I didnt know. I was under the impression that; with the exception of cellular services, internet speeds were primarily the result of the infrastructure in the system and not affected so much by an intentional degrading by the ISP's.
Thank you.
BTW, I still love you Hobbes.
How do you feel about the guy that the corporation commission sends out to test all the gasoline pumps periodically to make sure the gas station isn't selling you 87 octane gasoline labeled as 93 octane gasoline?
On one hand, I'd love a completely free and unregulated internet. On the other, we all know better than to trust corporations to behave. I have a hard time finding middle ground. I know one of the biggest problems is the government-enforced monopoly use of infrastructure and such. Open up the market to competition and things will be better.
which is exactly ass backwards to what the comcast/twc merger would do ... ALL mega mergers will have a honey moon period .. followed by HUGE spikes in costs! don't believe me .. look at what you are paying for communication costs after Ma Bell was allowed to merged back together ... look at our fuel prices after remnants of Standard Oil was allowed to MEGA merge back together.
Enter your email address to join: