Originally Posted by
kwelz
I disagree with the first part. A company should be able to expand the services it wishes to offer. Nothing wrong with doing both as long as you are fair.
The second is something that I hope happens. I understand that there are a lot of factors in internet sped and they can't guarantee service speeds all the time. But it is stupid how badly it goes.
I tried one of the "Alternatives" we always hear we have. Was promised 24Mbs speed. At the best of times I got less than 10. And it went down every day at 1AM. EVERY SINGLE DAY!
Another little fact most people don't know.. The ISPs like to make it sound like the bandwidth they provide is a precious commodity that is expensive and we have to be careful.
Well the actual cost of that? Less than a single penny per Gb.. Actually around about .5 of a penny currently with it decreasing steadily. That means that even your heaviest users such as myself, use so little data that you couldn't even buy a large Starbucks coffee with what it cost them.
So bandwith is either essential free or it is so costly that no one will invest in it. The issue is the next increment on a cable system costs very little, to start a new network is really expensive.
Now, with net neutrality, no one in their right mind would put money down to start new systems- and I think the bigger issue is to add new capacity, why do it if you can't control it.
I still don't get the ISPs blocking websites. Slow down; maybe. More likely make sure their streaming media and that of partners that pay gets priority; yes.
I'm willing to pay for access and speed. To me, Net Neutrality sounds like Free Day at the Zoo. I hate free day at the zoo. Too many people, no parking, my kids can't see anything. I'm willing to pay so that I can park, get what I want and see the attractions.
Public commons always gets jacked and becomes crap with out some kind of ownership.
I said earlier:
Neither side is perfect, but to say that being against Net Neutrality is evil, isn't really helping things.
added a comma.
The media (who have a dog in this fight BTW) and others make it seem as though anyone that opposses NN is just a shill of big business and are evil. That isn't a real great place to work out a good ssytem, and is more of the Progressive demonization tactics.
The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.
It's that simple.
Bookmarks