The road to hell is paved with “good” intentions-

I have written about Net Neutrality a couple times before, but it’s going to be a hot topic this year and the years to come. Ultimately it’s government intervening in the internet, government regulation of the internet.  The idea that big corporations are taking over and making it hard for the little guy to succeed on the internet and the government needs to step in to “help.” “We just want to make it fair” -is their argument. Sounds nice right? Wrong.

I stumbled across this video and think it is perfectly said! Why should you be opposed to Net Neutrality when it “sounds” like a good idea? There are numerous reasons and this video answers them. WATCH!

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “The road to hell is paved with “good” intentions-

      • Yes, I am in favor of retaining the “Net Neutrality” we have enjoyed since the structure of the Web first migrated FROM the government, specifically the military, to individual consumer access. The Net was built by the government, for the government only originally. Then large corporations including Xerox and IBM thought maybe they could use it as a sales platform, and large universities established LANs for research. That lead to AOL, a sort of corralled ranch (for Net newbies) inside the Web, featuring controlled content access. Individuals weren’t granted general access until the mid 1990s, decades after the government began using it.

        What the term “net neutrality” means is that you, as an individual, get the same access priority for your little digital info packets and requests that Netflix or YouTube etc. does – first come, first served. The proposed change, mainly championed by one guy at the FCC, is to give big companies priority if they pay a fee. In practice that means if YOU don’t pay, the kid next door gets to watch Frozen for the 45th time RIGHT AWAY, while you get to watch the spinning icon as you try to do research for your term paper or get your personal emails.

        Yes, I want the government to guarantee that my individual, non-commercial use of the Internet will still get equal consideration and speed of access as big companies who want to sell me stuff – like we’ve had since the 90s.

        Like

      • Even if this impedes on your personal liberty? Yes, I understand what Net Neutrality is, I understand it to ‘help” the little guy….that’s the step in, I don’t for a moment think the government would stop there-this comes at a much greater cost than you are inferring…..

        Like

  1. Again, you are stuck in the problem of referring to the monster as Frankenstein, when Frankenstein is the name of the doctor. The change would be to DIS-establish Net Neutrality, the condition we ALREADY HAVE. That’s what would cause a restriction in personal freedom, the freedom to use the Net for non-commercial purposes. The CHANGE is an increase in government interference (via the FCC), allowing those who pay thousands per month extra to have a toll lane on the infohighway AND cut us off during busy usage hours. Do you want to do all your blogging at 3AM?

    Like

    • Net Neutrality is not leaving it like it is now. It will be up to the people. If there’s a demand for what you sell, you’ll get a response. There’s always been the big guys, but little guys can and do make it. Supply and demand, capitalism, free market enterprise- The full picture on government involvement, is not pretty-

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s