Comment Re:There it goes. (Score 1, Insightful) 319
As well they should, don't you see the danger of internet providers controlling content?
Don't you see the danger of the GOVERNMENT controlling content?
As well they should, don't you see the danger of internet providers controlling content?
Don't you see the danger of the GOVERNMENT controlling content?
why didnt they do this before? Simple.
We had a Republican administration form 2000-2008 and they did not want it.
Before then Net Neutrality was not really even an issue here on slashdot much less in Washington.
As for government intervention, I agree with you about it to an extent. The problem is that we already regulate utilities (and I believe ISP's are quickly becoming a utility) because it is unreasonable to expect the market to be able to handle multiple competitors with the huge infrastructure costs as a barrier to entry.
Making it a utility is an entirely separate argument, though. We're saying it's not a utility, but government needs to intervene and regulate it. Frankly, I think that the Internet is critical enough as infrastructure that it's worth a conversation about whether or not it is a utility or should be treated as such. This back door method of handing the FCC authority that it's never had previously by scaring people into thinking that the big bad ISPs are going to control their access to content is just wrong.
The only thing this does is tell ISPs that they cannot discriminate traffic based on the end points. Meaning they have to give the exact same QoS to Netflix Traffic as they do their own VOD service. They have to give the exact same QoS to Vonage that they do to their own VoIP product. STOP WITH THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT FEAR MONGERING.
And please explain to me how the FCC does this if it doesn't have the authority to do it? Net neutrality is the FCC assuming authority over ISPs. You can type in caps until your 12 year old head explodes. That doesn't change the fact that net neutrality is the FCC saying that they have the authority to tell ISPs how they have to treat content.
and when people ask me why I don't like Republicans, I just give them answers like this. Whenever it's Big Business vs The People, we know where they're lobbying.
Would be nice if they lose and We (The People) win this time.
The problem is that it is not the role of elected officials to do what is in the best interest of Big Business OR The People. Elected officials swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. You're right that far too often Republicans are willing to decimate the Constitution if it lines the pockets of their corporate donors. The inverse of that are Democrats, who shred the Constitution to line the wallets of the people that receive entitlements and make up their voter base.
I'm very skeptical about net neutrality because I don't like giving the federal government more power, and this inarguably does that. Once the FCC tells ISPs what they can and cannot do with traffic on the lines, they have that power forever. That means that, like another commenter pointed out, the government now has the right to filter and censor content. I also think that this is an abuse of the oft-abused commerce clause of the Constitution and is therefore not under the purview of the federal government.
Finally, I don't like the way that this is being done. If the FCC has always had the authority to do this, why didn't they do it before? They waited until they knew that net neutrality would never make it through Congress and then "discovered" the authority.
"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson