 |
| GOP / Obama (it's a very subjective picture) |
The one-line justification for quashing net-neutrality seems to be related to profit margins.
More profit, more research (which makes) more profit.
The third-Grade explanation of "Net Neutrality" seems to be that all data will be treated equally, no matter the source.
A movie, a blog, a song, they're all the same.
but
obfuscation creeps in.
https://www.hydesmith.senate.gov/gop-senators-oppose-proposed-fcc-net-neutrality-rules
They oppose anything sweeping from a democratic administration; blame the bad, block the good, until they enter in like the Second Coming to do (basically) the same, with different labels.
They thought of it first, their way is better, and Here's a flag and a song to prove it.
Money talks (bleh?)
Pay a guy a shitload of money and maybe he'll change his voting mind.
Anyway, they got their funds, their support,
while the rest of us mumble "net-who?"
 |
| I can't read this but if I could, I'd think it wasn't very neutral, hmm |
OK Now I gotta go research "Brookings",
the hypnotoad evil guy or the sage Yoda?
but Court-judges stick around, to declare anything they dislike illegal.
Per the Party, per the guy Funding it.
acronym vs acronym (TBA)“Now, the Commission will no longer have the refuge of statutory ambiguity to shield this overreach from judicial scrutiny,” ITIF director of broadband and spectrum policy Joe Kane said in a statement.
But mostly it's about profit.
Who profits and where (and why?)
OTOH they could just BUY the damn ISP and be done with it.
The government would like to oversee and have regulatory power over (fill in this blank) but (insert greeky words here), and yada God and Country, it should be illegal.
So pay extra, say some, because old-ladies, kids and babies.
https://www.procon.org/headlines/should-net-neutrality-be-restored-top-3-pros-and-cons/ (bombastic Article I never read but I should, and I will, someday)
incongruous type rant:
Ten or so (20?) years ago, ATT had two tiers of internet.
One was low-cost or free, and showed the weather and a few fluffy articles.
I got very pissed and called them to pay more for actual-internet.
NOW if I bring it up, no one knows what I'm talking about.
So nevermind (unless it's about to make a comeback)
PS
T-Mobile doesn't care (right this second) what you download,
Would they, Could they, offer streaming deals that don't affect caps??
For only $39.95 more a month (less than $1.25 a day) you Could binge watch forever.
Or do they do that now, only I've been under a rock.
And maybe $15 more a month to a service,
($65 total monthly) I could watch old TV shows.
Sounds like Cable (I'm not getting it, you-all pay this and say you're cutting cords?
Sounds like you've been bamboozled again)
O, I get it, now you can wander into a Starbucks, pay the $4.00 and get a coffee, sit in your empty shiny black truck, and stream Duck-Dynasty (whatever)
My Cable wasn't capped or if it was, I never knew, but they charged $39.95 more a month.
Tis true, they tried to lower the price when I broke off the engagement, but I knew it would be fleeting.
*Think* how much less time I'd spend typing these if I could stream from my bed, snoring while The Movie of the Day played.
Googling this subject, I saw lotsa Google links for T-Mobile streaming "deals" but nothing that put caps and streaming together.
Pay a little, pay even more, get a "Deal" unless y...ou g...o oooover....the...limit (makes no sense to me)
If we buried net neutrality would they soften their hard hearts, or would someone sue them for being too generous??
 |
| Where's the Neutrality? (How old is this blurb?) |
 |
| 50GB vs 1.2TB, uh, no thanks. |
No comments:
Post a Comment