Net Neutrality = Free speach
This ranks right up there with "access to the internet should be a right" as some of the dumbest crap I've heard in recent times.
I swear I think half this country doesn't have the slightest clue what the difference between a right and a privilege is.
You have the right to purchase the privilege to access the internet if you can afford it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Okay, maybe I need to explain more.
I agree with your philosophy, but itís the application that I think you may be misunderstanding. Let me use the ESPN/Ringer example again, because they are competing pages and one has a lot more backing than the other.
This new ruling would allow ESPN to cut a deal with ISPís to effectively blackball the Ringer by slowing their websites bandwidth to a crawl. And while normally I agree in the pay-to-play concept ó as a consumer you wonít get to make that choice under this ruling. Corporations will choose for you.
Another example, letís say you live in left-leaning MA where only Comcast provides a connection online. How would you feel if Comcast cuts a deal with MSNBC to put the brakes on Fox News. Now,
When you at home go online, search for Fox, you find a webpage that just wonít refresh or takes excessively long to load, effectively censoring the content you would like to consume.
Again, as a consumer, you donít get to purchase access to content.
No matter how much $$ you are willing to pay for your service, itís just not your call anymore.
Comcast, Time Warner et al are the ones that will decide for you what websites are accessible, and what webpages are slowed to a crawl. They will be allowed to prioritize this, not you or I.
Now I donít know about you, but most people I know rely on the Internet for a lot of information and world views. The fiber in the ground that carries this data was built through PUBLIC funding in most cases, so itís not as if ISPís are selling access to something they invested their own $$ to build. We built it, with our tax dollars, and now they want to privatize/profit off our infrastructure and control the content you and I can reach. Iím reminded of the situation in China, where govít restricts their ISPís to only show some 15-20 websites to their citizens while blocking off the rest.
How is that a good direction for our country?
Can you explain how this change benefits our country?
I sincerely want to understand the GOP benefit analysis on this, as the FCC didnít even bother with an economic assessment before voting on this.