3 ms·

Good thing we have elections and laws and if the bad behavior you predict happens (which I doubt) we can fix the situation.

by jquery 9y ago

ep103 9y ago
I agree, the current Alabama election, and the 2018 elections are going to be very important. I'm not sure why you think the bad behavior wouldn't happen. [This reddit link](https://np.reddit.com/r/KeepOurNetFree/comments/7ej1nd/fcc_unveils_its_plan_to_repeal_net_neutrality/dq5hlwd/?sh=45a33b81&st=JAA62V5F https://np.reddit.com/r/KeepOurNetFree/comments/7ej1nd/fcc_u...) compiled a number of times the FCC has had to step in to enforce NN. And if the ISPs weren't planning on behaving against NN, why spend the money fighting against it? But at least we're on the same page now : )
uhhhhhhh 9y ago
I'm amazed at your lack of knowledge on a subject you insist on repeatedly commenting about. Net Neutrality has existed longer than you pretend, nearly 15 years in various forms that have gotten stronger over time. We have past examples of the bad behavior being stopped by net neutrality you are trying to pretend may or may not happen in the future. The "Market" solution was already tried, and bad actors/bad behaviors already drove the "solution" of net neutrality. You're pretending the past doesn't exist and you're claiming we haven't tried and watched the market solution fail to protect consumers. As for other comments, no China doesn't have Net Neutrality. Without NN, ISP's were deregulated preventing the FTC/FCC from being able to regulate them specifically as you've claimed. What consumers want with NN doesn't immediately fall under "anti-competitive" (look at cable for example), so no the FTC/FCC cannot use anti-competitive regulations to provide the same consumer protections as NN. You repeatedly confuse censorship with "pay to access" or "pay to perform". NN isn't to prevent censorship, its to prevent pay for access/speeds and turning the web into a tiered/package platform like cable is.

Good thing we have elections and laws and if the bad behavior you predict happens (which I doubt) we can fix the situation.

by jquery 9y ago

Good thing we have elections and laws and if the bad behavior you predict happens (which I doubt) we can fix the situation.

ep103 9y ago

I agree, the current Alabama election, and the 2018 elections are going to be very important. I'm not sure why you think the bad behavior wouldn't happen. [This reddit link](https://np.reddit.com/r/KeepOurNetFree/comments/7ej1nd/fcc_unveils_its_plan_to_repeal_net_neutrality/dq5hlwd/?sh=45a33b81&st=JAA62V5F https://np.reddit.com/r/KeepOurNetFree/comments/7ej1nd/fcc_u...) compiled a number of times the FCC has had to step in to enforce NN. And if the ISPs weren't planning on behaving against NN, why spend the money fighting against it? But at least we're on the same page now : )

uhhhhhhh 9y ago

I'm amazed at your lack of knowledge on a subject you insist on repeatedly commenting about. Net Neutrality has existed longer than you pretend, nearly 15 years in various forms that have gotten stronger over time. We have past examples of the bad behavior being stopped by net neutrality you are trying to pretend may or may not happen in the future. The "Market" solution was already tried, and bad actors/bad behaviors already drove the "solution" of net neutrality. You're pretending the past doesn't exist and you're claiming we haven't tried and watched the market solution fail to protect consumers. As for other comments, no China doesn't have Net Neutrality. Without NN, ISP's were deregulated preventing the FTC/FCC from being able to regulate them specifically as you've claimed. What consumers want with NN doesn't immediately fall under "anti-competitive" (look at cable for example), so no the FTC/FCC cannot use anti-competitive regulations to provide the same consumer protections as NN. You repeatedly confuse censorship with "pay to access" or "pay to perform". NN isn't to prevent censorship, its to prevent pay for access/speeds and turning the web into a tiered/package platform like cable is.