Steven's analogy to the postal service is the most apt in this video. If people (or companies) end up being throttled or cut off as a result of who they are or what their beliefs are, etc., then that's the time to put net neutrality laws into place. ISPs are also prevented from engaging in what's known as "paid priority," where they pay to have certain bits sent to computer screens at a faster rater than others, under net neutrality regulations.
According to Commissioner 'Rielly —one of the few people who's actually read the order—there is not a shred of evidence in the order that any aspect of this structure is necessary.” The record leading up to last week's vote contained evidence of only five instances in the history of the internet where ISPs may have thwarted content providers' access to end-users, none of which required heavy-handed net neutrality rules to address.
As the FCC prepares to vote on new Open Internet rules that will open the door for increased investment and digital innovation, there is a lot of misinformation that this is the "end of the world as we know it" for the Internet. All of the fear-mongering in support of Net Neutrality about censorship, throttling data, big business charging higher rates, etc… IS ONLY MADE POSSIBLE BY THE GOVERNMENT RESTRICTING COMPETITION.
If there is to be a standard for consumer protection with regard to ISPs, then perhaps it would better for Congress to pass a clear statute that maintains light regulation on the ISP market while returning the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to its role of being the enforcer in such matters.
The internet is a series of networks which allow all devices to communicate using the same protocols, an ISP provides access to the internet. This would indeed be the case if households could simply shop around for ISPs but in fact, most American households are limited to one or two options when it comes to high-speed internet.
For example, the Euro union is one big family, and they have EU net neutrality rules, however internet somehow costs money and have to pay for packages still by their internet service providers. The ISPs are abjectly answerable to people: they only exist so long as people freely choose to use their business.
Now, gamers also like to browse facebook or google from time to time, so this company had better devote at least some of their bandwidth to these other companies if they don't want to lose their customers to another company that does all that they do but also offers some bandwidth to those other companies.
On the contrary , net neutrality prevents ISPs from favoring one service over the other, the way Microsoft favors its own products by including them in their operating system instead of competing products. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are in the customer service business.
Research the difference between ‘dedicated' service and ‘best-effort' service, and the economics behind running an ISP., and you'll quickly realize that an ‘all-you-can-eat' internet means congestion for everyone. The problem is that many people in the US dont have a choice in which isp they use which if net neutrality goes away it gives the isp 100% control over what their customers see and at what speed.
Dude is dumb as dirt I'm sorry just cause Google and Facebook are ing us that means we want our ISPs to us also? More often than not, internet service providers are monopolies. Now this cable company has finally realized Steven Crowder Net Neutrality Video that a lot of people would rather watch video content online than buy it from them.
Remember this notorious quote regarding the equally notorious and equally hated Obamacare?: We have to pass it so that you can find out what's in it.” The same applied for the 300+ pages of regulations making up Net Neutrality- only very few people were privy to what the regulations actually do before it got passed.