And no one is claiming that it will lower costs. The only claim is that it will stop ISPs from throttling specific services. Other than that, no one is claiming that it will improve services either.
Your argument is a strawman.
The claim is that Net Neutrality and other government regs will increase competition which will lead to lower prices and improved service. Or so claims,
this web site.
"It's not clear yet whether Title II would indeed be necessary to force ISPs to provide better services to consumers, or that it would even work. Ideally, what we want in a market – any market – is high competition, which forces the market players to improve services and lower costs. In the U.S. that seems quite hard to achieve right now, when some states and cities even ban local competitors to the large incumbents. Given this context, Obama's proposals start to sound quite good."
If it is a strawman argument, I'm not the only one making it. Do try to get out more.
Once again, the rules adopted by the FCC do not restrict the flow of information. It does the opposite.
Are these the 300+ pages of rules that haven't been publicly released yet?
How do you
KNOW what effect they will or won't have?
You keep claiming, why don't you explain exactly how they intend to restrict content by making it illegal to restrict content?
That won't happen under these rules.
Exactly how? Pretty easy really.
First option, the rules are not quite what the summary claims they are and actually give the feds broad powers to restrict the flow of information in the name of national security.
Second option, at a future date the FCC votes to interpret these rules so as to allow them to restrict information.
Third option, having established the precedence that the government can control the flow of information (by preventing content providers from restricting it themselves, even for cost reasons), they use that precedence to adopt new rules that allow them to restrict the flow of information.
When Billary told us that they didn't want to take away our hunting guns, just those dangerous "assault rifles" did we believe them?
How did promises about Obamacare reducing costs and improving care work out?
Is it really all that bad to have all private sales go through an FFL so the buyer can be background checked? They promise it won't be used to create a national registry of guns or gun owners.
Now, to be clear, I don't think agreement on RKBA presupposes any agreement in other areas of politics or life. So I've got no heartburn if you don't want to put on my tin foil hat over these new rules. I've been fairly clear that my concerns are based somewhat on paranoia about government control of anything. If you are less paranoid that I am, great.
But you're being far less civil in your responses than you need to be. You can convey your point of view without insulting the intelligence, experience, knowledge, or even opinions of the other members of the forum.
Dr. House was able to be a jerk because his competence was beyond question.
An anonymous poster on a discussion board doesn't enjoy that same benefit of the doubt and so should avoid being a jerk.
Charles
