To be clear, there was no debate. This was muscled through by a bunch of greedy piggies out to smash and grab the Internet along with everything else in the country. They ignored the public opposition.
At least this is being fought at the state level in blue states.
"For all of the hue and cry over the repeal of net neutrality, the disaster scenarios presented by critics remain, for now, mostly hypothetical"
For all the hue and cry over the foxes who just broke into the coop, the disaster scenarios presented remain, for now, mostly hypothetical.
False equivalence is not objective journalism.
The public has never understood what "Net Neutrality" actually meant, especially since it was hidden under the false rubric of people getting something for nothing.
SpamSandwich said: I hesitate to respond to this baldly partisan bait, so I'll just mention that every administration and every politician is beholden to at least one special interest or another.
False Equivalencies ("They ALL do it!") are not only false. They are the bastion of the weak....
What was false about it?
DAalseth said: The second problem is something we see here in Canada. A limited number of telecom providers, for both home and cellular, that do not collude, but somehow all charge similar high prices for limited service. The idea that "the market" will self regulate is a hugely popular fantasy for libertarian types, but in the real world, especially the real internet world, it just does not work.
True, though this isn't a problem with the concepts of Capitalism, but with human nature. Economics is a social science, but we've largely lost the 'social' aspect and have gone with lots of 'science' and 'modeling' and such. 'Hands off' Capitalism simply will never work, but that isn't the fault of Capitalism, but the 'hands off' aspect.
The alternative, though, also doesn't work (for the same reasons). If you give the FCC (or any agency) the kind of power that was given w/o proper checks and balances, it also will be used for bad purposes.
This whole debate is a battle of two evils, one masquerading under the guise of 'innovation' and the other 'Net neutrality™'. Neither care about true net neutrality principals or the users of the Internet.
GeorgeBMac said: How much did AT&T pay into to Trump's slush fund so his "fixer" could tell them what Trump thought about Net Neutrality and mergers? That's free market isn't it? They could have donated that money to anybody.
No, as that isn't what the term 'free market' means in economics.
Restrained_Nicholas said: At least this is being fought at the state level in blue states.
Who (mostly naively, one hopes) want to hand control over to the wise and trustable government to enforce 'unlawful content' policies on the Internet?
Comments
True, though this isn't a problem with the concepts of Capitalism, but with human nature. Economics is a social science, but we've largely lost the 'social' aspect and have gone with lots of 'science' and 'modeling' and such. 'Hands off' Capitalism simply will never work, but that isn't the fault of Capitalism, but the 'hands off' aspect.
The alternative, though, also doesn't work (for the same reasons). If you give the FCC (or any agency) the kind of power that was given w/o proper checks and balances, it also will be used for bad purposes.
This whole debate is a battle of two evils, one masquerading under the guise of 'innovation' and the other 'Net neutrality™'. Neither care about true net neutrality principals or the users of the Internet.
No, as that isn't what the term 'free market' means in economics.
Who (mostly naively, one hopes) want to hand control over to the wise and trustable government to enforce 'unlawful content' policies on the Internet?