"Equal Access: Equal access says that everyone should always have equal priorities to the flow of information on the internet. Net neutrality would prevent them from doing so, and would essentially "socialize" the internet."
The article goes on:
"Equal Rates / Equal Service: According to proponents, under net neutrality, everyone has to be charged the same, and provided the same services. This is the antithesis of capitalism..."
None of this is true. The actual rules would force broadband providers to provide transparency, no blocking of lawful content, and no discrimination of lawful traffic.
Anyone who has purchased broadband knows that understanding what they are charging you for is impossible to understand. This is made more complicated by the fact that many of the companies use off shore customer service people who are hard to understand period.
Some websites, lawful websites, are already blocked. Christian Science Monitor points out that some providers are blocking Skype video phone. These rules would prevent your provider from doing that to you.
Not discriminating against lawful content is about the idea that providers might download their own content faster than other content. Image the idea that AT&T might download their video content more readily than Youtube.
There is nothing heinous in these rules. They restrict what companies do so that they can't restrict what you do. For Tea Party folks, consider the idea that most media outlets are owned by so-called "liberals." What will happen if they decide to block Tea Party content in deference to... I don't know... the Democratic party website? That's exactly what these rules prevent.
No comments:
Post a Comment