"Net neutrality" is a deceptive name so that it sounds so nice that you would have to be an asshole for being against it. But it is something which would prevent ISPs from being able to decide which internet content to give a higher priority in their business model to maximize their resource management.
A cable provider is able to decide which content to give a higher priority in their business model, but you would deny an ISP the same ability.
That's bogus.
I agree its a catchy name.
Just because cable ***** us we should be ok with an additional penis is your logic here?
I guess I was editing my post while you were responding to it.
I added that "net neutrality" would be like forcing construction companies to lay down a four lane highway to every business in the country, whether it was Disneyland or your Aunt Mabel's home jewelry making business out of a trailer park, in the name of "infrastructure neutrality". Running a four lane highway to Aunt Mabel's doublewide is simply inefficient and a revenue loser.
The auto traffic analogy is just as apt as the cable one. In the early days of automotive travel, we started with a handful of entrepreneurs who built roads for the few daring automotive afficianodos. But as cars became more popular, the roads become more congested, and priorities had to be set as to which roads would be given more traffic handling ability and which roads would be one lane blacktop or even dirt and gravel.
So it is with the internet. Traffic is high, bandwidth is limited. We have to allow the ISPs to determine the right sizes for the roads which carry the traffic. We can't give every content provider a four lane highway.
