Net Neutrality: A Balanced Approach to Both Sides
The news got a reaction out of you AGAIN, just like they wanted... Here is some solid information.
In one corner: The FCC Chairman Ajit Pai.
And then there's the people, the group paying for things. Because let's be honest, those living in categories of prosperity and wealth might care but aren't nearly as affected by the possible (and I mean possible,not actual) downsides of certain parties having theoretical control over what we view. The issue for them would be price, which is not a practical issue for someone in the USA making over 75 grand a year.
Here are facts that we know are facts:
Because something is possible, does not mean it's going to happen.
There is some truth to the claim that the public went hyperbolic, people who react rather than think and respond are almost always not thinking straight. We can all agree that emotional responses are never good.
Most of the people who react to the news, have not the knowledge, nor applied the due diligence to have their opinions taken seriously. This is the truth we are talking about, the reality.
When it comes to what is the reality, you better know what you are talking about because people might live and change their lives relative to the info spewing from your foaming crevice.
This is not customer service, and your uninformed opinion is nothing but that, emotions, and we do not care. I'm saying this because I care about you and how you look.
Reactions are never effective. I learned this the hard way. What claims victory over injustice are well thought out presentations that are clever and genius.
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”― Harlan Ellison
Key supporter for reformation of the FCC's repeal.
Former chairman claims that current FCC call for FTC regulation of future abuse is not valid.
Ideas in support of the FCC's decided Change:
- The FCC should not be forced to regulate thousands of ISPs (Internet Service Provider)
- This would allow for greater innovation because ISPs would be capable of limiting OR gracing certain companies with high-speed access. The competitive spirit of the repeal would stir companies to make their organizations and the delivery of their goods and services high quality.
Against the FCC's decided change:
ISPs can charge what they wish, create different packages for certain web content, which would effectively limit the practical use of the internet (in its entirety) for those who cannot afford it.
This does NOT mean the entire internet would be limited, it means you would receive what you paid for, and if you cannot afford it, that means you are limited to what you can view. This does not necessarily mean the government or the FCC is trying to control the information we see. That's a possibility. Suggesting that it is an absolute is an idea, and "only a Sith deals in absolutes." — Obi-Wan Kenobi
ISPs can decide which companies have access to high-speed internet relative to their users, and since they will continue to purchase this internet if allowed to, that price could be passed onto the consumer, which is the difference between "not necessarily" and "but still practically so."
These regulations are just to save what is referred to as "old media" meaning companies do not change their style (print vs online news) are trying to stay relevant which can already be seen in your recent cable package. Why is it so difficult to just get internet?
- Throttling: intentional slowing of the speed of a particular internet service
My thoughts from beginning to end:
There is nothing cool about the possibility of everything going wrong with this idea. Practically limiting the free flow of information is just wrong.
The idea of companies being forced to up their game is something the capitalist in me feels good about.
As usual, I desire a synthesis. I have Leo in my south node, so I understand the king way of doing things, and I am filled with joy with what is beneficial for the greater good.
Let's say an ISP wanted to control for its own means, some CEO has an issue with another CEO and decides to make said other CEO pay more for his internet. This is eventually passed on to the consumer and bad bad bad.
Let's take the same situation and say the CEO is someone like Mark Cuban, who has experienced the exhilaration of becoming a success, what it does for himself, and those he loves and desires that same thing for others. He wants bigger and better value, more opportunity and progressive change. So he limits the resources a sub-par organization can use in order to force them to up their game or die. That's a basic law of the universe folks, change or die. Don't get mad for it manifesting on all levels, as everything always does.
I, still, do not understand why either side of an argument cannot see the benefits of the opposing argument. Gift or curse, that is not a disease that I share.
I want a mix of regulation and concern for maintaining what the internet represents (a place where all information is freely available and is not limited for those who do not have the status of funds to view it) and pressure on organizations to increase their standard.
If this is negative, and just self-preservation for old media, then it will only be birthing pains. Nothing lasts forever, especially when we gradually desire different value than that which is provided by old media.
My final word is synthesis.
It's always a mix of two extremes that provides the best results.
We seek balance in every part of our lives, and this one is no different.