Is the "Net Neutrality" debate about the government regulating Web content, or Web access?
“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it....”
Access. Unless you're a Republican.
Thank goodness most people understand the issue. At least, in some capacity.
The President wants control of the Internet. Enough said.
lol, I hope that is a joke. Net neutrality is about making sure no one has "control" of it.
You poor child. So naive.
While I agree with you, I believe it is other organizations of our government who would rather control the Internet than our president. He doesn't have time to watch the Internet and gold at the same time!
Golf, my apologies.
He lied about Government healthcare.
Yes, and that is why we can not trust him with the most valuable information database.
It's about us not having to pay more money
It is about Governmental Control.
You do realize that Net Neutrality ensures that no one has control of it, right? Not even government.
Lmao, You don't really believe that do you? They want to be able to REGULATE it not free it for everyone. Is water free? Is your sewer free?
The gov loves to protect. That are it here to help.
Neither. It's about prohibiting people from paying for prioritized service.
Why is that a bad thing?
1) Because it is another impediment to our liberties.
2) Hospitals and industrial customers pay for prioritized service to avoid interruptions in service that literally can kill people.
Why don't we provide Internet to our schools, liberaries, and hospitals and call it a day?
What? They buy their own service. They don't need you to buy it for them.
Well what money do they buy it with, smarty pants?
Their own money, unless you're talking about government-owned versions.
It's about allowing access rather than letting companies restrict it.
NN is the principle that ISPs and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.
This is the definition I looked up. Now, this should mean if you are PRO net neutrality, you are CONTRA regulations. It looks so simple, why the debate?
My impression from this definition is that it refers mostly to content and restricting or not restricting access to the content, not access to the web in general.
Because without regulation preventing it, Comcast will do what Comcast does, and you'll pay extra to get access to anything they don't profit from.
Question: if the principle as I defined above is observed, would that bar a provider that hosts, say, discussion forums, to enforce something like a no adult topics policy because he regulates content?
The point is that they would not be allowed to throttle or block one source's content in favor of another's, as Comcast did earlier this year to extort Netflix. They shouldn't be able to filter, block, favor, or disclose any legal traffic.
Hosting a forum, and enforcing the rules of that forum, are completely outside of providing the means to access that forum or to deliver content to it. Extra services that an ISP may or may not provide are not part of net neutrality.
Thanks, I got it
It seems more like access to me but I'm not sure that's completely it. It's not content but I could see it heading in that direction if they start passing legislation. It always creeps up and up and gets more expansive.
Regulation creep, bracket creep, mission creep. Troublesome Threesome!
For the right its about government regulation, to the left it's about access.
For the informed it is about access.