Kyle Grillot, Reuters
Investors Business Daily: One Year Later, 'Net Neutrality' Zealots Proved Dead Wrong
Deregulation: A year ago, "net neutrality" zealots warned that its repeal would spell doom for a "free and open" internet. They could not have been more wrong.
Net neutrality mania was so intense that one year ago FCC Chairman Ajit Pai had to cancel his appearance at the Consumer Electronics Show because of death threats he'd received. That was the same day the FCC published its final rule repealing "net neutrality."
So-called experts predicted that removing this cumbersome Obama-era regulatory scheme — which granted the FCC virtually unchecked power over internet providers — would lead to the demise of the internet.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: I am putting up this post because this morning I gave a presentation on why Canada should not permit Huawei to provide a G5 network in Canada, and it digressed to why those who advocated "Net Neutrality" were wrong. The above article sums it all up nicely. As for why Huawei should not be responsible for a nations G5 communications, Instapundit posted yesterday a must read explanation on why (and one which I concur with) ....
.... Editors at The Epoch Times, which is uniquely well-sourced in China, recently assigned a crack team of journalists to dig into Huawei, get beyond its official facades and expose the ugly facts about the firm’s role as one of Beijing’s most effective espionage tools. You will want to, as Glenn says, keep scrolling in this special report. And go here for daily updates on Huawei developments.
And Stephen Green’s Dec. 13, 2018, post is well worth revisiting as well.
4 comments:
Net Neutrality was just a fight between those who wanted to load up content without restriction while forcing ISP's to eat it without charging extra. Use as much bandwidth as I want and ISP's cant meter me.
ISP's obviously wanted the freedom to set tiers of pricing for users of their hardware.
That former model is unlike any in the business world. No surprise that bandwidth and access is growing with the slaying of Net Neutrality. Google, FB, Amazon cried and donated to Dems, all to no avail.
Take what happened in one particularly egregious scenario in Canada in 2005, when the telecom Telus blocked access to a union website that promoted a labor strike against the internet provider. Then there was what happened in 2012 in the U.S., when AT&T announced it would block U.S. users’ access to FaceTime on iPhones unless they paid for a higher data plan; the company reversed course after consumer advocates sent complaints to the FCC. With the new FCC rules, though, companies will be able to do any of these things as long as they say they might in their terms of service.
Yet so far the only blocking going on is left inclined websites blocking dissenting voices from their platforms. No ISP blocking anywhere.
Facebook, Twitter are prime examples of blocking its own users who express ideas that aren't in favor over in Silicon Valley. The content providers are doing what they accused the ISP of wanting to do. Hypocrisy on a grand scale.
there is a difference between social sites and web providers and they should not be lumped together. as far as content exclusion, the GOP dislikes regulations and strips what there are in place
if Silicon Valley dislikes the non left, why is our President so often using Twitter to express his views?
Post a Comment