Interesting take on it. I've always been part of the pro-net neutrality, mostly because the only reason (it seemed to me) that they were removing it was because Obama put it into place. I'd never heard an actual legitimate reason until now.
That said, I still disagree with you on some points. While I don't want the government to be in my business on the computer, and taking power away from them is something I want, I don't want to need to pick and choose which internet provider I want because not all of them service the websites I need. If its go with provider A but don't get facebook vs go with provider B and pay 10$ extra to get a social media pack or something, that's just dumb-not to mention them possibly censoring things that they don't like, for example competitor provider's websites.
I guess in the end it all depends on the providers. Will they be assholes or not? haha
Hey ?Craig? -
Thanks for sharing your opinions on this! I see your quandary. Especially when you say, "I don't want to need to pick and choose which internet provider I want because not all of them service the websites I need. " And you are right that we can't know for sure how it will all turn out. I wonder if there has ever been an ISP blacklisting certain sites and if that was forced by government or their choice AND, if that ISP survived the customer loss due to that practice? See, I'll admit I have some trust in that most, if not all ISPs - if not controlled by gov that SURELY WILL CENSOR - will do what their customers want, especially in a free market where competition can thrive.
Yeah, it's very possible that they would be competing to get the lowest price/allow closest to everything if there was competition against another ISP. Who would go with ISP 1 if they were making you pay extra for social media, when ISP 2 wasn't? They could balance themselves out.