|Space Broadband Virtual Reality (AF)|
Sometimes we are given something from the money we give our government and it works so well we forget how important it is for us; Until is taken away or worse we let them take it from us and given to the cable company to use and make money from you and me.
You know it will be like your net experience you get now but then someone will have control over it.
They will have control of the channels obviously and will be happy to turn the channels you turn now but then they will charge you for it. I am just making a money argument but there are other reasons you don't want to give up owning this vehicle but I will stay on the economics of it affecting you.
The bottom Denominator is money and people in the business of the internet would like more of it and now there is a government that is pro-business, are very rich themselves and would like to help out people (Supreme Court ruled that Business' are people too)when the arguments come to Americans vs. Business' this government will vote business they supply jobs argument..
Actually, this is not an argument about jobs but about control=money. In all fairness I understand the internet companies being nervous about the 2020's when there would be different world from today. By 2050 nothing will be the same. Buses without drivers, electric airplanes, money. All of that we have already and it just need to be replacing the way we are slowly. That is a more convincing argument that you don't sell when the world is volatile but what you own does not loose value. We need to hold on to it. We need some control so others won't control us.
What would happen if we lose the net neutrality for its users? The control will go to cable and communications companies and they will do what they always do(you can answer that one).
The government will want a piece too.
For sure your cable bill will go down to prove what a good choice that was. Then, they will sell you the experience a la Carte. You pay when you join any intent company separately or use it, ie: Facebook$ would sell you the experience and if you want Google$ experience, or others etc. it will be more membership or usage$ It's a little like Con Ed does in NY. They charge for selling you the electricity that other companies are selling you and charging your experience separately. Many times my Con Ed Experience $ is higher than the actual electricity and that gives me a bad experience and one can tell me that is good for me because I don't feel it when I see the numbers.
It used to be called shipping and handling when someone charges you to have good or services delivered to your home. Now is called Supplying you with the experience or just Post office or delivery charges (the Con Edison Factor). Never give up what you have because you want something better! No one will replace it, they will give you their own idea of what you have with their idea of what they want for you.
You can even see it so clearly in the national government we elected.
Adam Gonzalez Blogger, talking about Net Neutrality. Below is NPR with nonfiltered news.
NPR's Elise Hu talks to former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler about what the FCC decision to end so-called net neutrality means and what it will mean to consumers of internet streaming.
ELISE HU, HOST:
The Federal Communications Commission will vote next month to remove nearly every rule on the books that protect the idea of net neutrality. Basically, that means Internet service providers like Comcast or AT&T could go from being neutral gateways to everything on the Internet to gatekeepers. They could decide to load some sites more slowly or impose fees for faster service. The rules being repealed are just 2 years old. The FCC's Republican chair, Ajit Pai, says they've hurt the online economy. Here's what he told NPR's Morning Edition today.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED BROADCAST)
AJIT PAI: The Internet wasn't broken in 2015 when these heavy-handed regulations were adopted. And once we remove them, I think we'll continue to see the infrastructure investment that will benefit digital consumers and entrepreneurs alike.
HU: Let's get a response to that from Pai's predecessor. Tom Wheeler chaired the FCC when it approved these rules in 2015. Tom Wheeler, thanks for joining us.
TOM WHEELER: Thanks for having me.
HU: Well, first, net neutrality is a term that can cause our eyes to glaze over. But obviously, it's been central to your career. So how do you explain it to people in your life to get folks engaged on the issue?
WHEELER: We actually said that we need to talk about this in terms of the open Internet rather than the abstract term net neutrality because that really describes what's going on here. We're talking about - is the Internet, which is the most powerful and pervasive platform in the history of the planet - is it going to be open to all comers, or is it going to be a toll road that the consumer has to pay to get special services or that service providers have to pay to be able to reach the consumer? And what we said was, no, this is an asset that is key to the economy of the 21st century, and it must be open to all.
HU: Your successor though, Chairman Ajit Pai, says the Internet wasn't broken in 2015 when you and the commission approved these rules. He calls them heavy-handed. So can you point to anything that got better for consumers over the past two years because of these regulations?
WHEELER: After these rules were adopted, we have seen investment in the broadband increase. We have seen VC investment in new startups that use the Internet increase. And we have seen an expansion in the kinds of services that are available to consumers. This has been a success.
The Internet was indeed broken before the 2015 rules were put in place because the companies were blocking content. They were throttling content. And they even went to court to tell the court under oath that they intended to have fast lanes and slow lanes so that consumers would have to pay more. So with all due respect to the current chairman, he is making up something out of whole cloth that was denied under oath (laughter) by the Internet service providers in court.
HU: So what would be the effect on consumers now under the changes that are proposed?
WHEELER: Oh, wow. If you like your cable company, then you'll love what's going to happen to the Internet because suddenly the rules - instead of being open, the rules now will resemble very similar to what your rules are if you're a cable company where the cable company decides who you can get access to, what your prices will be.
HU: I'm curious, though. Something confusing in all of this is that both sides of the debate say that they support the idea of an open Internet. So sort through this for us. What's the debate over if both sides say, hey, we love the open Internet?
WHEELER: I think you've got to start with one key fact, and that is what we found when we were developing the open Internet rules - is that two-thirds of American consumers have at most one choice as to who they can get their Internet access from. That means we're dealing with a monopoly. And when those monopolies turn around and say, oh, we're for an open Internet, what they're really saying is, we're for an open Internet because we can make the rules. And we said, no, we think that the representative of the consumer ought to make those rules.
WHEELER: Thanks, Elise.