Reply to post: Re: Net Neutrality is to Free Open Internet as PATRIOT Act is to Patriotism

FCC forced by court to ask the public (again) if they think tearing up net neutrality was a really good idea or not

bombastic bob Silver badge
Meh

Re: Net Neutrality is to Free Open Internet as PATRIOT Act is to Patriotism

not a bad analogy. More like "Net Neutrality is to Free/Open Internet as CO2 is to global warming" - where people all SAY that 'Net Neutrality' is something that it really is NOT [it's just another gummint takeover of a generally UNregulated thing, in the name of 'freedom' or 'fairness' or some OTHER such *LIE*] in the same way that people *FEEL* (not think) that CO2 (produced by humans) is causing global climate "whatever". (if you want proof view my posting history, no need to create a distraction thread branch here, but from MY perspective, it's a really good point to make).

And, the point is that 'net neutrality' *SOUNDS* like something we would want, i.e. no favoritism, everybody equal, etc., but isn't. In actual practice, it means that UNPROFITABILITY for the fringe cases would COST EVERYONE ELSE A WHOLE LOT MORE (in the name of 'fairness' and 'neutrality')!!! And that's just the beginning of it.

Personally I'd *love* to have a fast-lane that you could pay for. It'd be like 1st class seating on an airline, buying a "fast pass" for commuter lanes and toll roads, and having everything delivered to your house. You pay more to get BETTER SERVICE. The fruits of that extra revenue end up lowering other costs, or improving overall service, because that's how businesses operate. [if you don't *FEEL* [not think, *FEEL*] that I'm right about this, I suggest you need a clue-bat attitude adjustment].

And this straw-man "poor person" who can't get high speed internet because of NO NET NEUTRALITY has been driving a LOT of "arguments" though. But I see it this way: WHY must *I* only be able to afford LOUSY INTERNET so that the TAXES from that will "help" some "straw man poor person" [not ME] "afford" high speed [faster than what I have I bet] intarwebs *AT* *MY* *EXPENSE* ???

This is a case of GUMMINT PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS, and *ULTIMATELY* it's what the so-called "Net Neutrality" *REALITY* ends up being - MORE! GUMMINT! TAKEOVER! AND! POLITICAL! PAYOFFS! TO! PROTECTED! AND! FAVORED! CLASSES!!! [people who vote for *them* in other words]

Besides, the FCC really shouldn't be regulating things "that way". Such regulations need to be passed by CON-GRAB (aia 'congress') except they're too busy WITCH HUNTING to bother with it...

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021