If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A far-sighted man in 1967 once said:
"RichA" wrote
"I begin by speaking of the threat of a nationalized information system. I wish now to make an important distinction. I wish to distinguish between a nation-wide information system base upon computers or television on the one hand and a nationalized system on the other. (Net neutrality IS nationalization, in reality). A nation-wide system can exist as a partnership between government and private industry. In a nationalized system the products of industry are expropriated. He's worried about socialism. The anti-net-neutrality position is based on dimwitted scaremongering: If rich people are not allowed to own everything then we'll inevitably slide into socialism and you'll only be able to buy one flavor of toothpaste. If we give all resources to rich people as grants, they'll make lots of money and provide us with jobs. Heck, they'll even set up a company store where we can buy our groceries. Rich people are nice people. And with enough rich people running things we don't have to think for ourselves. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are geniuses. Just ask them. We should let them own stuff and sell it back to us. That's been the argument all along. It's nothing new. The liberals call it welfare for the rich. It's essentially a flavor of plutocratic monarchy. A structured version of king-of-the-hill. Dimwitted statemen whose greed overshadows their intellect, like Ryan, Hatch and McConnell, call it helping the working man. (And they probably say that sincerely. It's too preposterous to say otherwise. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt in assuming that they're honest insofar as that they're incapable of seeing their own dishonesty; men of minimal moral and intellectual development.) Net neutrality simply means the people who sell you access can't control how you use it. Period. It doesn't mean the gov't owns the wires or the websites. Just as the phone company can't put ads in your phone call or downgrade the transmission to competing companies. There's net neutrality for phones, and that just means you can call anyone you like. It doesn't mean you can only call gov't propaganda sources. A lot of people are trying to get to own the whole thing before the dust has settled. Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon... They're all examples of small-minded people who see a new world coming and want to own it. Actually they want to own you. Just as AOL managed to do for awhile. But people don't complain about that because they think they've chosen to spend their days diddling Facebook or iPhone apps. No net neutrality would mean those companies have to make deals with the likes of Comcast and Verizon, because your ISP would be deciding what you can access. That's why the tech companies are for net neutrality. But at least with them you still have some choice. What about things like wikipedia and craigslist in a world without net neutrality -- the people who are trying to do something useful for the public? They're at risk now because of the walled garden strategies of the big tech companies. Without net neutrality they'll be gone altogether, for the simple reason that they're not profit-oriented. What about hospitals that provide medical advice websites, florists who provide gardening tips, newsgroups like this? All gone if they don't have a business model that justifies paying to be online. They'll be like the small town that gets bypassed by the new interstate highway. You can still go there. There just isn't a road to do it, or if there is, there's no way for you to discover it. Comcast Search won't list those sites. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A far-sighted man in 1967 once said: | Savageduck[_3_] | Digital Photography | 3 | January 16th 18 02:18 AM |
Ferraniacolor regular 8mm, 25 asa, dated 1967 | Proczybar | In The Darkroom | 17 | July 13th 04 05:17 PM |
BIGFOOT SIGHTED BY D60 !!! | Annika1980 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 4 | June 27th 04 05:26 PM |