DemocRAT = Communist.......People know what the hell is & has been going on for a long time but are still too politically correct to say it.....Freedom of speech my ass....This whole made up Russians interfered in the election bullshit is a Democrat/Communist smokescreen as a lame & dangerous attempt to hide what their real agenda is....People especially Democrats had better wake up & smell the real coffee & ditch their party fast...
Every time you post this, you continue to make a bigger ass of yourself. It already has been answered several times.
"Net neutrality" has nothing to do with enforcing neutrality and everything to do with assembling some kind of government-controlled panel that would decide what is or isn't allowed to be published.
Do you know how to make something truly neutral? Leave it alone.
Otherwise, please feel free to tell us exactly what the government would do to make it more "neutral" (whatever the fuck that means...how exactly is today's internet not considered neutral?)
Good one!Alright fuck tard, I'll play your stupid silly game. One condition, please answer my question in the snowflake thread. Otherwise, go fuck yourself.
-We'll start with this. Net neutrality by name sounds all great...open and free internet right? Anyone, anywhere, anytime can access anything at any amount, any speed, any GIGabyte size, torrent, dark net, etc. Not so fast.
-In essence what net neutrality does is to allow the government to determine and control the internet providers as to how they operate their business, in essence, turning internet into another government regulated utility like water, electricity, gas.
-Now that being said, it's easy to see why Democrats would want to add more government control over a "private" business. Let's dress this up as a pretty little pony called "Net Neutrality". First it starts with a feel good, best for the people approach. A few years later they add more regulations, then more taxes, then more regulations....next thing they will be advocating for a government option to compete with the private IP providers...except the government gets to make the rules and make rulings on private companies.
Mark Cuban (Democrat extraordinaire) vehemently opposes net neutrality due to the fact it will grossly limit innovation and growth. Here's a quip from a recent interview he did with the Washington Post.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The Verizon decision [the January, 2014, court order that struck down the Federal Communication Commission's 2010 passage of net neutrality rules] has created an opportunity for the FCC to introduce more rule-making. They shouldn't. Things have worked well. There is no better platform in the world to start a new business than the Internet in the United States.
There is a difference between a boost and a fast lane. I want there to be fast lanes because there will be applications that need fast lanes. We are just now entering a period where we are seeing new ways to create and use high bitrate applications.
People like to use movies and TV shows as a reference to issues that could occur on the Internet. [But] the real issue is that there will be many applications that we can't foresee today. [And] we need those applications to not just have priority, but guaranteed quality of service.
I want certain medical apps that need the Internet to be able to get the bandwidth they need. There will be apps that doctors will carry on 5G networks that allow them to get live video from accident scenes and provide guidance. There will be machine vision apps that usage huge amounts of bandwidth. I want them to have fast lanes.
-The sad thing is the part of net neutrality that is attractive (no censoring of certain content) can be accomplished by other things other than the government taking over a large and growing service in out country. Every business, communication, etc all use the internet now to operate all important aspects of their businesses.
-Now, the last thing we need is another government takeover of anything private. IP providers are able to manage their databases and servers how they want. Companies that use HUGE amounts of broadband can dilute their service, making it slow, cumbersome, expensive. It can affect the entire network and erode the service of their company. The government spent over $600 million to build the Obamacare website that is a total pile of shit.
One last thought,
-If Net Neutrality comes to pass how can we trust it will not be written in a way that will make it harder for new companies to offer Internet services? If anything, we're likely to end up even more beholden to the large telecoms than before. Of course at this point the politicians will tell us if they hadn't stepped in that things would be even worse.
If the telecoms are forced to compete in a truly free market, Comcast and Time Warner won’t exist 10 years from now. They’ll be replaced by options that give us better service at a lower price. Some of these new options may depend on being able to take advantage of the very freedom to charge more for certain types of Internet traffic that Net Neutrality seeks to eliminate. If we want to break up the large telecoms through increased competition we need to eliminate regulations that act as barriers to entry in the space, rather than create more of them.
That may be your opinion, however it is greatly flawed. Net neutrality per this discussion is individuals should be free to access all content and applications equally, regardless of the source, without Internet Service Providers discriminating against specific online services or websites. It is the principle that the company that connects you to the internet does not get to control what you do on the internet. That is what is at stake. I guess you assume that if we just leave them alone, they will not try to exploit users to make money. Very naïve on your part.
If you are going to plagiarize, at least credit the sources.How about I fix this for you.
A special prosecutor has been appointed to determine IF President Trump's campaign colluded with Russia to help him win the election in 2016. So far, there isn't a shred of proof any laws were broken and there is no proof thus far the Russians influenced the election in any way.
hno:
