Rifmaster wrote:well i dont see why it wouldnt work with saying x speed at the source is the minimum, just like when you buy an internet package. however far easier than that one could only allow a certain percentage of speed choking on whatever they dont want you to see.
the reason europe has "better" (if you consider cheaper but censored nanny state internet better, have spoken to several folks of different european countries that can not access many of the same websites i can) internet than the united states is because it is more compact. the united states has entire areas that are bigger than most of europe that basically have nobody living in them. there are still vast areas of the east rural coast where DSL is a new thing and before that it was satellie or nothing. until you drive several hundred miles on one of our midwest highways and see less than a dozen other cars you cant really understand the difference.
doing it in the manner i described would allow a transition period for new companies to solidify, build infrastructure and provide competition allowing the free market to sort itself out and prevent the problem. changing the rules after the monopolies already exist and the internet is stripped of its freedom of speech protection is just going to ***** everything up as it will be years if ever before vew viable competition emerges.
Well the problem with forcing companies to provide x amount of bandwidth/speed is that if someone wants, lets say only 20% of the internet speed that is the minimum required by law, they can't get that, and they have to pay for some larger net pack that they don't need. There's a few other problems, but it's basically the same thing as marxism where it's illegal to sell things on a higher/lower price than the one set by law. Just leave the free market to do that.
The compact thing doesn't work when you realise that in actual densely populated cities in the US you have to pay more for worse internet. The exceptions tend to be places with actual competition, the only competition for now being google fiber.
I'm not sure what you mean by keeping the internet under the control of the united states. You mean like having a national ISP? Cuz those suck. Their workers have no incentive to work hard, there is no need for innovation, no need for progress and upgrades, it's just bad.
your seeing problems that arent there, and ignoring the ones that are right in front of your face threatening to **** up the internet, in fact many of the things you are concerned about is what the neutrality protected against.
i am all for the free market solving the problem however that is not going to happen for a long ass time since the monopolies formed first, which is why i am not against removing the regulations on future technology. establishing minimum speeds or maximum throttling percentages at least for a five year or so period would provide a transitional time for new companies to form and get set up, without that there will be years of ***** before the free market catches up.
the internet when under united states control ensured that at least here and in other countries that do not persecute for thought crimes that no content could be blocked thanks to our first amendment protections, this means that if you lived in a crappy country that censored the internet but could figure out a way around the blocks you could still go where you wanted. since it no longer has that protection it is only a matter of time before anything deemed subversive or offensive by a bedwetting ************* can be kept off entirely.
the internet speed and paying a few more dollars to download another 500 terrabytes of porn is an extremely minor issue, the fact that this will inevitably lead to the wider censorship of the internet is THE issue, particularly for the 300 million americans that have enjoyed an open internet. not shifting the cable bill 20 bucks to one side or the other.
