Net neutrality

[balljoint]

https://mobile.twitter.com/GovInslee/status/941075518924865536/video/1

[balljoint]

The left

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8NtOxuHli0s

The right

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h51IP3Z_A9A

Any questions?

[Clayton_Wetter]

Net neutrality is a very bad bill.

[mcarter815]

Net neutrality prevents the ISPs from creating “fast lanes” that hurt internet startups and protect their own services from competition.

[Clayton_Wetter]

Net neutrality got shot down.

[balljoint]

The point of the posts above is to show the foolish and obamish nature of Jay Inslee..If he's for it....its bad

[mcarter815]

Yes, which is a bad thing. The net neutrality regulations prevent ISPs from favoring their own services over services from competitors. Shooting down net neutrality stops competition.

[Krooser]

Net neutrality was a fancy name for government control... the internet has been doing just fine without it.

[mcarter815]

Sorry, Krooser, but you're wrong about it doing just fine without it. Verizon and others were working on creating fast lanes and were already throttling customer speeds. The Verizon attorney even admitted to the fast lanes during the Supreme Court case. This isn't about the past, it's about the future. The first net neutrality regulations were created in 2010 when online video streaming was just starting. It's a much different world now.

[Clayton_Wetter]

No Mc. He is exactly correct. Net neutrality was government control and censorship in disguise. Why can't you understand the globalist mentality. Obummer was trying take freedom of speech out of the internet. That is a fact.

The left always comes up with enticing names for their crooked causes.

[mcarter815]

No, it wasn’t.

[dirtdobber45]

Yes it was.... so your trying to say the internet was bad three years ago?

[balljoint]

9

Nothing good came from obama handlers

Internet peaked a long time ago...used to be a lot better.

[dirtdobber45]

Nothing good came from obama handlersInternet peaked a long time ago...used to be a lot better.

That aint what carter said. And we all know hes the all knowing... lmfao

[mcarter815]

When you buy access to the Internet, you're purchasing a particular capacity, which is like saying "One lane in each direction is fine for my parents, but I need a five lane superhighway." You're paying your provider for the ability to handle a particular amount of traffic. What net neutrality proponents are against is letting the owner of the road decide that red trucks can use all five lanes of the highway, but green ones must stay in the slow lane. And the blue trucks? We're giving them their own dedicated lane because we really like the company that makes them. If you pay the owner, they'll let you remove the restrictions on one of the types of traffic. We'll ignore the fact that the road owner owns the company that makes the blue trucks, so people will prefer them over others even if they like the service provided by other trucks. Where business will be stifled is if the ISPs get to prioritize the traffic they deliver to their customers. The next Netflix or Skype could be killed by having their traffic relegated to degrees of service that make them unusable. The consumer is already paying the provider for the bandwidth they get, allowing the provider to charge them again for specialized access is what stifles business.